3 ms·

Patents 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, fol

Patents 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 ago
It 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.