3 ms·

More surprising to me: Xerox patents were allowed to expire. What I draw from this is that when patents are allowed to work as intended[0], that corporations ar

More surprising to me: Xerox patents were allowed to expire. What I draw from this is that when patents are allowed to work as intended[0], that corporations are very much more likely to invest in new technologies and push for new innovations. They were able to still reap billions off the printer market they invented, but this seems to have kept them on their toes, founding PARC, which inspired / lead to tons of innovation in its own right (even if it wasn't owned by Xerox). I know this isn't the direct point of the video, but that is my ultimate takeaway here, that the patent system, when applied as intended[0], actually drives innovation and reasonably protects innovators long enough for them to make enough to fund their next thing etc. [0]: Approximate definition I mean of this: Giving the inventor(s) the monopoly on a technology / innovation for a finite period of time, then released into the public domain edit: apparently I got my facts wrong (took video at its word that the patents expired) but that is, in fact, not the whole story. Though, I think my broader point is still sensible, that a functioning patent system, when working as intended, would foster innovation & investment that otherwise wouldn't be fostered.

AlbertCory 4y ago
They're not "allowed" to expire, they have an inherent time limit. Of course, smart patent holders make "improvements" and get new patents before that happens. On the printer market: maybe you mean the laser printer? The 9700 came out in 1977, and the other laser printers a few years after. PARC was founded in 1970. There was also an antitrust settlement that Xerox made, which forced them to license the patents to competitors before they expired.
- w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
  That how insulin business works... Patent expire, a new version is out, old version is removed from production.
erosenbe0 4y ago
Xerox did not 'allow' their monopoly on copiers to expire. They regularly filed large numbers of patents and engaged in monopolistic commercial practices in an attempt to lock up one or more elements of the supply chain. The FTC then forced them into a consent decree in the 1970s that required them to license the patent portfolio at a reasonable royalty fee. This allowed the Japanese market entrants to compete and therefore innovate for the benefit of the consumer. Edit: arguably, because Xerox did not have to compete with the Japanese until legal actions were taken, they were NOT actually on their toes and lost ground rapidly once the market was opened. Had they been forced to compete by the late 1960s instead of mid 1970s, they may have been in a better position to sustain themselves against foreign competitors.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  I should have read this before my comment, sorry. You're correct. Laser printers didn't create PARC -- it was the other way around.

AlbertCory 4y ago

They're not "allowed" to expire, they have an inherent time limit. Of course, smart patent holders make "improvements" and get new patents before that happens. On the printer market: maybe you mean the laser printer? The 9700 came out in 1977, and the other laser printers a few years after. PARC was founded in 1970. There was also an antitrust settlement that Xerox made, which forced them to license the patents to competitors before they expired.

w1nst0nsm1th 4y ago
That how insulin business works... Patent expire, a new version is out, old version is removed from production.

erosenbe0 4y ago

Xerox did not 'allow' their monopoly on copiers to expire. They regularly filed large numbers of patents and engaged in monopolistic commercial practices in an attempt to lock up one or more elements of the supply chain. The FTC then forced them into a consent decree in the 1970s that required them to license the patent portfolio at a reasonable royalty fee. This allowed the Japanese market entrants to compete and therefore innovate for the benefit of the consumer. Edit: arguably, because Xerox did not have to compete with the Japanese until legal actions were taken, they were NOT actually on their toes and lost ground rapidly once the market was opened. Had they been forced to compete by the late 1960s instead of mid 1970s, they may have been in a better position to sustain themselves against foreign competitors.

AlbertCory 4y ago
I should have read this before my comment, sorry. You're correct. Laser printers didn't create PARC -- it was the other way around.