3 ms·
No, because one of the traditional use-cases why patents were made is so that an inventor of a novel solution can get investment to get that invention actually
by PeterisP 3y ago
No, because one of the traditional use-cases why patents were made is so that an inventor of a novel solution can get investment to get that invention actually implemented without risking that the investors will just steal the invention; or that the inventor can contract a manufacturing company to make the prototype without risking that they will just include the invention in their own products.
So being able to secure a patent before its first implementation is made is pretty much a non-negotiable requirement.
- brightlancer 3y agoPatents are often not directly exploited by the holder; instead, the holder sits and waits decfor someone else to build a working tool, then sues. So, yes, folks should be able to secure a parent before they're able to build and sell a working product, _but_ it should be a requirement that they build and sell within a shorter time-frame than the length of the patent, e.g. the patent is for X years and I have to build and sell within 0.2*X years or the patent is rejected.
- PeterisP 3y agoIt seems to make sense, but is problematic in practice - for example, for pharmaceuticals it might take half of the total patent time until you are able to sell a product based on the patent, as getting FDA approval could take something like 8 years if they ask for more trials. Also, patents make sense also for things that are not for sale to general public - for example, an invention to improve some machines that you use in your factory, but aren't selling to other factories i.e. your competitors; consumer products are the thing that is visible, but B2B products matter even more.