4 ms·

If you can't make what you invented, the whole world can't have your invention? That seems suboptimal for society.

by pionar 5y ago

kspacewalk2 5y ago
If you can't make what you invented, you can find someone who can and license the invention to them. That seems optimal for society.
tablespoon 5y ago
>>> I would say it needs to be realigned to only allow productive companies to hold/protect patents. >> That would mean only large companies would own patents. It would be the death of the independent inventor. No capital to make what you invented? Oh well… > If you can't make what you invented, the whole world can't have your invention? That seems suboptimal for society. Right now, a small independent inventor can use their patent rights to secure capital to produce their invention. If only "productive companies" can hold patents, instead of investing in small inventors, they'd just freeze them out until they lose their rights (or use that threat as leverage to buy the patents for less than they're worth). The "whole world" won't get their invention, just the people rich enough to profit from it, and the inventor gets squat.
- cecilpl2 5y ago
  > instead of investing in small inventors, they'd just freeze them out until they lose their rights (or use that threat as leverage to buy the patents for less than they're worth). I'm trying to understand your point but it seems like you are saying that all people with sufficient capital would band together to prevent small inventors from getting funding for years?
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I'm trying to understand your point but it seems like you are saying that all people with sufficient capital would band together to prevent small inventors from getting funding for years? Legal rights are often the only protections the little guy has. Take them away, and the big guys are better able to take advantage. The people with sufficient capital don't need to band together in a conspiracy, they just need to understand their advantage, and act accordingly. And I don't know where you're getting "for years" from. If a small inventor/"[un]productive company" can hold a patent "for years," you're basically describing the current patent system, and the ancestor comment becomes a meaningless suggestion. If the ancestor comment isn't a meaningless suggestion, someone "with sufficient capital" should be able to sue an inventor's patent into nonexistence for being held by an "[un]productive company," which would be strong leverage to demand a lower price. One of the biggest merits of the patent system is it gives independent small inventors a chance at seeing some success. A "reform" that undermines that is not a reform worth pursuing. Also a lot of "reforms" proposed by internet commenters aren't very thought through. Often they're just narrow things aimed to stop some specific thing that's in the front of their mind, with little consideration of collateral damage.
rhino369 5y ago
They can make it; they just need to pay a reasonable royalty. One of the easiest fixes for patent litigation issues would be for congress to set some bounds on what a reasonable royalty is.
- nradov 5y ago
  How could Congress ever do that in a reasonable way? There are orders of magnitude differences in the value of various patents.

If you can't make what you invented, the whole world can't have your invention? That seems suboptimal for society.

by pionar 5y ago

If you can't make what you invented, the whole world can't have your invention? That seems suboptimal for society.

If you can't make what you invented, you can find someone who can and license the invention to them. That seems optimal for society.

tablespoon 5y ago

>>> I would say it needs to be realigned to only allow productive companies to hold/protect patents. >> That would mean only large companies would own patents. It would be the death of the independent inventor. No capital to make what you invented? Oh well… > If you can't make what you invented, the whole world can't have your invention? That seems suboptimal for society. Right now, a small independent inventor can use their patent rights to secure capital to produce their invention. If only "productive companies" can hold patents, instead of investing in small inventors, they'd just freeze them out until they lose their rights (or use that threat as leverage to buy the patents for less than they're worth). The "whole world" won't get their invention, just the people rich enough to profit from it, and the inventor gets squat.

cecilpl2 5y ago
> instead of investing in small inventors, they'd just freeze them out until they lose their rights (or use that threat as leverage to buy the patents for less than they're worth). I'm trying to understand your point but it seems like you are saying that all people with sufficient capital would band together to prevent small inventors from getting funding for years?
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I'm trying to understand your point but it seems like you are saying that all people with sufficient capital would band together to prevent small inventors from getting funding for years? Legal rights are often the only protections the little guy has. Take them away, and the big guys are better able to take advantage. The people with sufficient capital don't need to band together in a conspiracy, they just need to understand their advantage, and act accordingly. And I don't know where you're getting "for years" from. If a small inventor/"[un]productive company" can hold a patent "for years," you're basically describing the current patent system, and the ancestor comment becomes a meaningless suggestion. If the ancestor comment isn't a meaningless suggestion, someone "with sufficient capital" should be able to sue an inventor's patent into nonexistence for being held by an "[un]productive company," which would be strong leverage to demand a lower price. One of the biggest merits of the patent system is it gives independent small inventors a chance at seeing some success. A "reform" that undermines that is not a reform worth pursuing. Also a lot of "reforms" proposed by internet commenters aren't very thought through. Often they're just narrow things aimed to stop some specific thing that's in the front of their mind, with little consideration of collateral damage.

rhino369 5y ago

They can make it; they just need to pay a reasonable royalty. One of the easiest fixes for patent litigation issues would be for congress to set some bounds on what a reasonable royalty is.

nradov 5y ago
How could Congress ever do that in a reasonable way? There are orders of magnitude differences in the value of various patents.