3 ms·
2-3 years is probably too short. Somewhere around 10 years seems more reasonable. The same should be true for patents, although the biggest problem with patents
by nextparadigms 15y ago
2-3 years is probably too short. Somewhere around 10 years seems more reasonable. The same should be true for patents, although the biggest problem with patents is not the length of the patent, but what is considered a valid patent by the Patent Office in the first place, when most of them get invalidated in Court when tested.
- randomdata 15y agoI've read it takes 13 years to take a new agricultural threshing design from concept to production. If the patent expired after 10 years, there would be no ability to recoup those massive R&D expenses. For other patents, 10 years is practically an eternity. It seems the problem is that there is no such thing as a one size fits all solution to intellectual property rights, despite our best efforts to try and fine one.
- loceng 15y agoPerhaps then only R&D would be put into things that would truly benefit all of society. The amount of thought and discussion that would go into each decision would be unprecedented. It could be controlled to allow competition of sorts, though less resources would be wasted by there being many times more duplication than necessary.
- unthreshed 15y agoSweeping some problems under the rug, this seems like an incentive to only patent something when you're ready for production... Sounds like a win for anyone who wants to use a new threshing design.