4 ms·

Forever? Patents have a 20-year lifespan and require you to disclose your methodology, allowing others to copy your idea as soon as your exclusivity period is u

kiba 5y ago
Forever? Patents have a 20-year lifespan and require you to disclose your methodology, allowing others to copy your idea as soon as your exclusivity period is up. In a world without patents, small inventors would have their ideas stolen immediately by corporations that have the resources to build and sell the invention. The big corporations have the resources to build and sell the invention and defend against a patent lawsuit regardless. Moreover, the big corporations already can use patents against smaller competitors and can fund more R&D to get patents and can simply sit on it. Also, it isn't always a good idea to disclose how your stuff work. For example, SpaceX doesn't do that because the Chinese government will copy their stuff. Not that it matters. The problem with the space industry is that the old space contractors and governments rest on their laurel even when SpaceX became the Goliath of the Space industry.
voakbasda 5y ago
That theft happens now. Small fish cannot compete with big fish without risking getting eaten alive. You think one pathetic patent would stand up against a FAANG’s warchest, if they really wanted to implement it? They will use your idea and bury you with their own patent portfolio, unless you license it under terms that are generous and favorable to their interests. If you want to play hardball, they will use their lawyers to drown you in legal debt before a judge ever hears the case. In this light, it should be clear that innovation has been completely crushed under the heel of the present system of fascist corporatism. Eliminating patents will not solve that overarching problem, though we know such an outcome would never be permitted to happen. Patent pools do not solve it, as that sacrifices the autonomy and independence that is the very essence of being a small fish.
- joshuaissac 5y ago
  > You think one pathetic patent would stand up against a FAANG’s warchest, if they really wanted to implement it? You can sell your patent to a troll that can stand up against FAANG.
imtringued 5y ago
I don't like patents. I like the 20 year life span. I can live with the compromise. There is no compromise for copyright.
jpeloquin 5y ago
> Patents ... require you to disclose your methodology, allowing others to copy your idea as soon as your exclusivity period is up. When I was taught to read a patent, I was told to skip to the claims, and the rest was useless except to provide definitions for words used in the claims. The description is _supposed to_ allow another practitioner to reproduce the invention, and many engineers who write patents do take the trouble to do this right. But as far as I know, the patent office does not verify that the description is valid or useful. They do try to check for novelty. I've also heard advice that engineers should avoid reading any patents because when there's a patent fight, damages are greater for willful infringement. Given that the usual practice is to ignore a patent's technical description, is a patent really useful as a disclosure of methodology? It seems like in practice, the only point is to plant a legal claim on some intellectual territory. As you note, the legal aspect may have genuine benefits, but the technical disclosure aspect seems to be useless.

kiba 5y ago

Forever? Patents have a 20-year lifespan and require you to disclose your methodology, allowing others to copy your idea as soon as your exclusivity period is up. In a world without patents, small inventors would have their ideas stolen immediately by corporations that have the resources to build and sell the invention. The big corporations have the resources to build and sell the invention and defend against a patent lawsuit regardless. Moreover, the big corporations already can use patents against smaller competitors and can fund more R&D to get patents and can simply sit on it. Also, it isn't always a good idea to disclose how your stuff work. For example, SpaceX doesn't do that because the Chinese government will copy their stuff. Not that it matters. The problem with the space industry is that the old space contractors and governments rest on their laurel even when SpaceX became the Goliath of the Space industry.

voakbasda 5y ago

That theft happens now. Small fish cannot compete with big fish without risking getting eaten alive. You think one pathetic patent would stand up against a FAANG’s warchest, if they really wanted to implement it? They will use your idea and bury you with their own patent portfolio, unless you license it under terms that are generous and favorable to their interests. If you want to play hardball, they will use their lawyers to drown you in legal debt before a judge ever hears the case. In this light, it should be clear that innovation has been completely crushed under the heel of the present system of fascist corporatism. Eliminating patents will not solve that overarching problem, though we know such an outcome would never be permitted to happen. Patent pools do not solve it, as that sacrifices the autonomy and independence that is the very essence of being a small fish.

joshuaissac 5y ago
> You think one pathetic patent would stand up against a FAANG’s warchest, if they really wanted to implement it? You can sell your patent to a troll that can stand up against FAANG.

imtringued 5y ago

I don't like patents. I like the 20 year life span. I can live with the compromise. There is no compromise for copyright.

jpeloquin 5y ago

> Patents ... require you to disclose your methodology, allowing others to copy your idea as soon as your exclusivity period is up. When I was taught to read a patent, I was told to skip to the claims, and the rest was useless except to provide definitions for words used in the claims. The description is _supposed to_ allow another practitioner to reproduce the invention, and many engineers who write patents do take the trouble to do this right. But as far as I know, the patent office does not verify that the description is valid or useful. They do try to check for novelty. I've also heard advice that engineers should avoid reading any patents because when there's a patent fight, damages are greater for willful infringement. Given that the usual practice is to ignore a patent's technical description, is a patent really useful as a disclosure of methodology? It seems like in practice, the only point is to plant a legal claim on some intellectual territory. As you note, the legal aspect may have genuine benefits, but the technical disclosure aspect seems to be useless.