3 ms·

That's effectively what the patent system already does. The "sum of money" you refer to is the market value of the monopoly on the idea embodied in the patent.

That's effectively what the patent system already does. The "sum of money" you refer to is the market value of the monopoly on the idea embodied in the patent. This solves the problem of what the price should be.

amelius 3y ago
It's not the same because a patent is a time-limited monopoly on a technology. This means that patents can be used to block the progress of other companies. E.g. if A patents X and some large company B wants to use X and A refuses, then B cannot use X even if they offer millions.
- hodgesrm 3y ago
  You are also right. I was responding to this. (Italics mine) > Like, if the government (or anybody, really) wants an invention to be open, The government literally does want inventions to be open. It's in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the constitution. [0] [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/ALDE_00013060/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/...
- sirclueless 3y ago
  > E.g. if A patents X and some large company B wants to use X and A refuses, then B cannot use X even if they offer millions. How does this situation improve in any way if X is a trade secret? Under what circumstance would company A be willing to accept payment to make X open, but not willing to license X as a protected patent? It sounds like you'd be in exactly the same situation except that there would be a massive collective action problem trying to figure out how much the world should pay A to make the invention open and who should pay it, and also A and B would have multi-million-dollar incentives to engage in corporate espionage and counter-espionage that achieves no progress.

amelius 3y ago

It's not the same because a patent is a time-limited monopoly on a technology. This means that patents can be used to block the progress of other companies. E.g. if A patents X and some large company B wants to use X and A refuses, then B cannot use X even if they offer millions.

hodgesrm 3y ago
You are also right. I was responding to this. (Italics mine) > Like, if the government (or anybody, really) wants an invention to be open, The government literally does want inventions to be open. It's in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the constitution. [0] [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/ALDE_00013060/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C8-1/...
sirclueless 3y ago
> E.g. if A patents X and some large company B wants to use X and A refuses, then B cannot use X even if they offer millions. How does this situation improve in any way if X is a trade secret? Under what circumstance would company A be willing to accept payment to make X open, but not willing to license X as a protected patent? It sounds like you'd be in exactly the same situation except that there would be a massive collective action problem trying to figure out how much the world should pay A to make the invention open and who should pay it, and also A and B would have multi-million-dollar incentives to engage in corporate espionage and counter-espionage that achieves no progress.