5 ms·

The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and solving problems. If you were to do so, you open yourself for further liability dow

The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and solving problems. If you were to do so, you open yourself for further liability down the road. Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers the same solution independently, even though, your patent did not help them in anyway.

rcfox 15y ago
> The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and solving problems. Tell that to the generic-brand pharmaceutical companies. ;) > Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers the same solution independently, even though, your patent did not help them in anyway. In the old way, where you had to actually present an implementation of the patented idea, I imagine this would have encouraged inventors to innovate more rapidly. The current system is very broken, and allows patents for things like the perpetual motion machine. (I'd try to provide a link, but engineers shouldn't be looking at patents.) "Oh, you're trying to genuinely improve our lives? Too bad I already came up with the idea in the shower one day and wrote it down before you did! But I'm willing to let you go ahead and try for $40 million."
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  If it can be shown that you can show that you have a history of reading patents, then it can be argued that you wilfully infringed. It certainly makes defense much harder. Patent lawyers generally recommend that engineers NOT read patents for that reason.
  - ars 15y ago
    What about reading only expired patents?
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I don't know, I'm not a patent lawyer myself. I suspect however, that they would advise you this is a risky activity.
- derleth 15y ago
  > The current system is very broken, and allows patents for things like the perpetual motion machine. Actually, they explicitly say 'no perpetual motion machines' or the equivalent (I think they say 'You must provide a working example of something you claim is a perpetual motion machine', which comes to the same thing.) It's a special little carve-out they have to fix that specific problem.
  - Natsu 15y ago
    Sadly, that hasn't stopped all of those patents from being issued. See here, for example: http://www.google.com/patents/about/6362718_Motionless_electromagnetic_gener.html?id=-64KAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents/about/6362718_Motionless_elect...
Gravityloss 15y ago
But why? If I patented something (that I'd spent resources on inventing), I'd sell a license for a reasonable sum, not block its use. That's the intent of the system. Or if I found a patent that was a solution to my problem, I'd buy a licence. People buy hardware, software, services all the time. Companies also do that and use them to build more value and sell that further. Software patents have lots of problems but the idea to just throw it all in the trash bin is a bit black and white. You could for example have (international?) patent courts that would prevent monopoly-by-patent things.
- slowpoke 15y ago
  People buy hardware, software, services all the time. There is a big difference between hardware and services, and patents. Software is a whole other deal, and I object to the whole model of proprietary distribution as well, but that's besides the point. Fact is, an idea is an abstract concept, not a physical good or a services. One cannot own an abstract concept - the very notion of that is completely nonsensical. If somebody has a an idea, and tells (gives) that idea to somebody else, both people will have that idea now. You cannot say the same of a physical good or a service. Besides, arguing for the status quo by citing the status quo is a circular argument. the idea to just throw it all in the trash bin is a bit black and white. We have a system built upon paradoxical, nonsensical and self-contradictory basics which does nothing but help create artificial monopolies and slow down or halt technological progress for the benefit of a few big corporations. There is but this only option, and that's to completely scrap it and never try it again. I'm honestly tired of seeing 'but that's black and white thinking' in defense of a completely indefensible position. Sometimes there are things which are simply bad - patents are one of those things. You could for example have (international?) patent courts that would prevent monopoly-by-patent things. The solution to a massively broken system that, in large parts, relies on huge amounts of bureaucracy is even more bureaucracy? I think not. You cannot fix this system - it's broken by default.
  - rcfox 15y ago
    > Fact is, an idea is an abstract concept, not a physical good or a services. One cannot own an abstract concept - the very notion of that is completely nonsensical. If somebody has a an idea, and tells (gives) that idea to somebody else, both people will have that idea now. You cannot say the same of a physical good or a service. You're missing the point. Filing patents isn't (in theory) about hoarding ideas. It's a way to ensure that when you expend (often large amounts of) money and/or effort in order to develop a new technology, you are able to reap the rewards. Often, a new technology is most valuable to the first person to commercialize it.

rcfox 15y ago

> The problem is, patents are not a repository for searching for solutions and solving problems. Tell that to the generic-brand pharmaceutical companies. ;) > Not only that, you then harm the person who discovers the same solution independently, even though, your patent did not help them in anyway. In the old way, where you had to actually present an implementation of the patented idea, I imagine this would have encouraged inventors to innovate more rapidly. The current system is very broken, and allows patents for things like the perpetual motion machine. (I'd try to provide a link, but engineers shouldn't be looking at patents.) "Oh, you're trying to genuinely improve our lives? Too bad I already came up with the idea in the shower one day and wrote it down before you did! But I'm willing to let you go ahead and try for $40 million."

burgerbrain 15y ago
If it can be shown that you can show that you have a history of reading patents, then it can be argued that you wilfully infringed. It certainly makes defense much harder. Patent lawyers generally recommend that engineers NOT read patents for that reason.
- ars 15y ago
  What about reading only expired patents?
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I don't know, I'm not a patent lawyer myself. I suspect however, that they would advise you this is a risky activity.
derleth 15y ago
> The current system is very broken, and allows patents for things like the perpetual motion machine. Actually, they explicitly say 'no perpetual motion machines' or the equivalent (I think they say 'You must provide a working example of something you claim is a perpetual motion machine', which comes to the same thing.) It's a special little carve-out they have to fix that specific problem.
- Natsu 15y ago
  Sadly, that hasn't stopped all of those patents from being issued. See here, for example: http://www.google.com/patents/about/6362718_Motionless_electromagnetic_gener.html?id=-64KAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents/about/6362718_Motionless_elect...

Gravityloss 15y ago

But why? If I patented something (that I'd spent resources on inventing), I'd sell a license for a reasonable sum, not block its use. That's the intent of the system. Or if I found a patent that was a solution to my problem, I'd buy a licence. People buy hardware, software, services all the time. Companies also do that and use them to build more value and sell that further. Software patents have lots of problems but the idea to just throw it all in the trash bin is a bit black and white. You could for example have (international?) patent courts that would prevent monopoly-by-patent things.

slowpoke 15y ago
People buy hardware, software, services all the time. There is a big difference between hardware and services, and patents. Software is a whole other deal, and I object to the whole model of proprietary distribution as well, but that's besides the point. Fact is, an idea is an abstract concept, not a physical good or a services. One cannot own an abstract concept - the very notion of that is completely nonsensical. If somebody has a an idea, and tells (gives) that idea to somebody else, both people will have that idea now. You cannot say the same of a physical good or a service. Besides, arguing for the status quo by citing the status quo is a circular argument. the idea to just throw it all in the trash bin is a bit black and white. We have a system built upon paradoxical, nonsensical and self-contradictory basics which does nothing but help create artificial monopolies and slow down or halt technological progress for the benefit of a few big corporations. There is but this only option, and that's to completely scrap it and never try it again. I'm honestly tired of seeing 'but that's black and white thinking' in defense of a completely indefensible position. Sometimes there are things which are simply bad - patents are one of those things. You could for example have (international?) patent courts that would prevent monopoly-by-patent things. The solution to a massively broken system that, in large parts, relies on huge amounts of bureaucracy is even more bureaucracy? I think not. You cannot fix this system - it's broken by default.
- rcfox 15y ago
  > Fact is, an idea is an abstract concept, not a physical good or a services. One cannot own an abstract concept - the very notion of that is completely nonsensical. If somebody has a an idea, and tells (gives) that idea to somebody else, both people will have that idea now. You cannot say the same of a physical good or a service. You're missing the point. Filing patents isn't (in theory) about hoarding ideas. It's a way to ensure that when you expend (often large amounts of) money and/or effort in order to develop a new technology, you are able to reap the rewards. Often, a new technology is most valuable to the first person to commercialize it.