3 ms·

This reaffirms the flawed notion IMO that the value of patents is in protecting ideas rather than the expense incurred in the development and validation of thos

This reaffirms the flawed notion IMO that the value of patents is in protecting ideas rather than the expense incurred in the development and validation of those ideas. A lot of the romance over patents is based on the idea of a lone inventor waking up one morning with an earth-shattering discovery, when the reality is that in most circumstances, those kinds of ideas are thought up by multiple people at roughly the same time, and rewarding the first person to write them down is counterproductive. However, in the case of things like industrial patents or drug patents, where there is considerable cost in shepherding a design through a complicated regulatory framework, it makes sense to give the company that fronted those costs some kind of temporary protection from unfair competition. If you look at patents under that lens, it makes economic sense that an AI generating an algorithm over the course of hundreds of hours would be patent-worthy.

ramoz 4y ago
IMO there is a greater, yet complex, romance in safeguarding actual innovation and national progress (even global given international agreements). On "rewarding the first person to write them down"... this isn't so simple, and rather costly especially when an idea only remains an idea... if it's real, then you should soon expect an invite to the PTAB where some large business has implemented your idea and/or built real legal arguments as to why your idea won't stand. Like you mention, there are however proponents, who feel progress can be prohibited by regulation. Chemistry patents are notoriously nuanced. Anyway... We're essentially spelling out the [1] Big Tech vs Big Pharma arguments. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/6c5b2cca-ae8b-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4 https://www.ft.com/content/6c5b2cca-ae8b-11e7-beba-5521c713a...
inglor_cz 4y ago
"rewarding the first person to write them down is counterproductive." One of the reasons why IP came to be was to incentivize people to publish details of their inventions, instead of trying to keep them secret. Not everyone did (famously, WD-40 formula is still a trade secret), but most innovators did, and other people could inspire themselves from such published works. Sometimes in areas that didn't infringe on the original patents. A public knowledge whose use is artificially restricted by law probably still beats a culture of secrecy.
- ghayes 4y ago
  Sure, but then we get to the issue of rounded corners. Whether or not the idea is novel and should be patentable, the publication of the patent provides no specific value to society.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > rounded corners That's a design patent, which is just a misleading name for something close to a trademark.
daniel-cussen 4y ago
> is based on the idea of a lone inventor waking up one morning with an earth-shattering discovery, when the reality is that in most circumstances, those kinds of ideas are thought up by multiple people at roughly the same time No patents are there for the inventor to go through the process of trial and error for indefinite periods of his life in the hopes he will at one point find the iconic invention. It's about there being a bright light at the end of the tunnel that can be seen all the way from the entrance.

ramoz 4y ago

IMO there is a greater, yet complex, romance in safeguarding actual innovation and national progress (even global given international agreements). On "rewarding the first person to write them down"... this isn't so simple, and rather costly especially when an idea only remains an idea... if it's real, then you should soon expect an invite to the PTAB where some large business has implemented your idea and/or built real legal arguments as to why your idea won't stand. Like you mention, there are however proponents, who feel progress can be prohibited by regulation. Chemistry patents are notoriously nuanced. Anyway... We're essentially spelling out the [1] Big Tech vs Big Pharma arguments. [1] https://www.ft.com/content/6c5b2cca-ae8b-11e7-beba-5521c713abf4 https://www.ft.com/content/6c5b2cca-ae8b-11e7-beba-5521c713a...

inglor_cz 4y ago

"rewarding the first person to write them down is counterproductive." One of the reasons why IP came to be was to incentivize people to publish details of their inventions, instead of trying to keep them secret. Not everyone did (famously, WD-40 formula is still a trade secret), but most innovators did, and other people could inspire themselves from such published works. Sometimes in areas that didn't infringe on the original patents. A public knowledge whose use is artificially restricted by law probably still beats a culture of secrecy.

ghayes 4y ago
Sure, but then we get to the issue of rounded corners. Whether or not the idea is novel and should be patentable, the publication of the patent provides no specific value to society.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > rounded corners That's a design patent, which is just a misleading name for something close to a trademark.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

> is based on the idea of a lone inventor waking up one morning with an earth-shattering discovery, when the reality is that in most circumstances, those kinds of ideas are thought up by multiple people at roughly the same time No patents are there for the inventor to go through the process of trial and error for indefinite periods of his life in the hopes he will at one point find the iconic invention. It's about there being a bright light at the end of the tunnel that can be seen all the way from the entrance.