4 ms·
I think if patents worked like that, there'd be a thriving market for patents on emerging technologies. VCs would fund research groups to do basic science, and
by sterlind 5y ago
I think if patents worked like that, there'd be a thriving market for patents on emerging technologies. VCs would fund research groups to do basic science, and their deliverables would be successful experiments and prototypes, turned into patents.
Instead, patents are used defensively, for obvious things and rent-seeking. Why is that?
I'm not sure, but I can imagine a combination of:
* You don't have to prove your invention works.
* Patents can be vague and broad, and the non-obviousness bar is depressingly low. Low effort patents have more power than real advances.
* It's hard to enforce patents on in-house processes and systems.
* Workarounds can be found after you've done the hard work.
* Basic research (e.g. algorithms) can't be patented, and basic research is the hardest part.
We really do need a system that makes basic research with high eventual impact profitable. Brilliant scientists are getting paid peanuts.
- Wowfunhappy 5y agoI'm trying not to show my ignorance by saying something terribly wrong, but my sense is that the patent system works better in pharma than in software. Pharma companies don't need to patent algorithms, but—this is where I hope I'm not saying something wrong—I think they can patent e.g. molecules? Certainly, the first company to the market with a drug is usually rewarded pretty heavily, until generics come online 20 years later.
- sterlind 5y agothey can patent molecules and synthetic routes. but once one company shows that targeting a particular receptor works, or binding to some site on a protein, other companies can find drugs that so the same thing but look different. for instance, Prozac was a breakthrough (the first SSRI), but it was easy for other companies to make their own SSRIs.