3 ms·

What novel ideas did the One-Click patent cover? Seriously. I think we're overpaying. And we're not paying the actual creative types. And we're not paying for

by wnight 15y ago

What novel ideas did the One-Click patent cover? Seriously. I think we're overpaying. And we're not paying the actual creative types. And we're not paying for what's really useful, just what receives the paperwork and has enough lawyers to attack based on it. If we really wanted to do this right we'd have a big vote for the people who made things (even textbooks, etc, like Knuth) that made the biggest difference in their industry. Then we'd take the money not being wasted on patents and give it to these people as part of a Technical Excellence Award. They'd also trickle some upwards to their resources and mentors, as disclosed before you voted. It's still got some holes in it but it's a better system because there are no limits on industry. No government employee is breaking open boxes of smart-phones and denying the right to sell them because they use some exclusive new innovation. That's just more proof that whoever invented that deserves more votes.

tptacek 15y ago
You're describing a patent system that functions as an achievement award. But that's not the purpose of a patent. Knuth already published his best work without the incentive of a patent. The extra award would not get him to publish a new volume of TAOCP any faster. Think of it this way: to function as intended, the patent system has to make it economically less attractive to closely hold inventions as trade secrets. Your idea, however laudable it is, doesn't do that.
- shasta 15y ago
  I don't really understand your objection. If, instead of trying to impose an artificial scarcity on copyable works (which includes inventions), we had a pool of "awards" that were distributed to creators proportionally to the value of the works, then of course that would provide incentive to disclose copyable works. So what if Knuth would get paid for work he would have made available anyway? There are plenty of people in our economy getting paid to do what they love and would do for free/much less. The main problem with the idea is that it eliminates negotiations between self interested parties as the means for value estimation. "Voting" on the most valuable works is quite simply a terrible idea. With copyrightable works, we could probably have some technological way (think DRM) of tracking popularity / frequency of use. But for patents, I'm not sure how it would work. I suppose that as long as you make it where the total tax levied on an individual to fund this system doesn't depend on how many or which works they used (though it could depend broadly on what they produce, what industry they are in, etc), they won't have an incentive to hide what they used. It's not at all clear to me that the difficulties inherent in such an approach are greater than those in current approach (which can be charitably describe as "a mess").
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The notion behind patents is that if we didn't have them, society would be poorer off because people would invent things and then keep them secret, perhaps far longer than the term of a patent, like the formula for Coca Cola.
    - shasta 15y ago
      That would also be the notion behind a system of awards for copyable works, so I'm not sure what your point is.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        No, the award system that's being discussed leaves applicants with no certainty that they'll actually be compensated for disclosing. That's not the case with the patent system; subject to modifications, competent patent applicants are virtually certain to get a patent 7 years after applying.
        shasta 15y ago
        The existing patent system doesn't guarantee you'll be compensated. In fact, most patents are worthless. The award system could easily incorporate a patent scheme, based either or first to file or first to invent. The important difference between this system and our current one is that licenses are not negotiated. Compensation is decided after the fact based on actual use.
        wnight 15y ago
        Yes, in the current system if you inject enough money you're virtually certain to receive a patent. Otherwise you wouldn't play again... But, there's no guarantee of reward. Far from it, you've only got a letter of marque, not the ship or crew to profit from it with. In a reward system it'd be totally different. No applications, no licenses, just instant wide disclosure. If you don't tell people they can't use it and you won't get rewarded. And you could just document and teach someone else's invention and get rewards that way, in proportion to the value of the accessibility you added.

by wnight 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

You're describing a patent system that functions as an achievement award. But that's not the purpose of a patent. Knuth already published his best work without the incentive of a patent. The extra award would not get him to publish a new volume of TAOCP any faster. Think of it this way: to function as intended, the patent system has to make it economically less attractive to closely hold inventions as trade secrets. Your idea, however laudable it is, doesn't do that.

shasta 15y ago
I don't really understand your objection. If, instead of trying to impose an artificial scarcity on copyable works (which includes inventions), we had a pool of "awards" that were distributed to creators proportionally to the value of the works, then of course that would provide incentive to disclose copyable works. So what if Knuth would get paid for work he would have made available anyway? There are plenty of people in our economy getting paid to do what they love and would do for free/much less. The main problem with the idea is that it eliminates negotiations between self interested parties as the means for value estimation. "Voting" on the most valuable works is quite simply a terrible idea. With copyrightable works, we could probably have some technological way (think DRM) of tracking popularity / frequency of use. But for patents, I'm not sure how it would work. I suppose that as long as you make it where the total tax levied on an individual to fund this system doesn't depend on how many or which works they used (though it could depend broadly on what they produce, what industry they are in, etc), they won't have an incentive to hide what they used. It's not at all clear to me that the difficulties inherent in such an approach are greater than those in current approach (which can be charitably describe as "a mess").
- tptacek 15y ago
  The notion behind patents is that if we didn't have them, society would be poorer off because people would invent things and then keep them secret, perhaps far longer than the term of a patent, like the formula for Coca Cola.
  - shasta 15y ago
    That would also be the notion behind a system of awards for copyable works, so I'm not sure what your point is.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      No, the award system that's being discussed leaves applicants with no certainty that they'll actually be compensated for disclosing. That's not the case with the patent system; subject to modifications, competent patent applicants are virtually certain to get a patent 7 years after applying.
      - shasta 15y ago
        The existing patent system doesn't guarantee you'll be compensated. In fact, most patents are worthless. The award system could easily incorporate a patent scheme, based either or first to file or first to invent. The important difference between this system and our current one is that licenses are not negotiated. Compensation is decided after the fact based on actual use.
      - wnight 15y ago
        Yes, in the current system if you inject enough money you're virtually certain to receive a patent. Otherwise you wouldn't play again... But, there's no guarantee of reward. Far from it, you've only got a letter of marque, not the ship or crew to profit from it with. In a reward system it'd be totally different. No applications, no licenses, just instant wide disclosure. If you don't tell people they can't use it and you won't get rewarded. And you could just document and teach someone else's invention and get rewards that way, in proportion to the value of the accessibility you added.