3 ms·
I don’t think that’s a good idea; it would hurt investment in promising startups. Today, “company failed, but produced valuable IP” is a fallback outcome for in
by brookst 3y ago
I don’t think that’s a good idea; it would hurt investment in promising startups. Today, “company failed, but produced valuable IP” is a fallback outcome for investors.
Declaring that the IP of failed companies (and individuals who hope to but never bring a product to market) is public domain just makes the problem worse. Is a patent valid if I sell one single product? If that one sale comes after an infringing product? Years after?
Patents are a mess and need reform, but IMO we are better served by reform that emphasizes truly novel inventions and not small improvements / variations that are essentially obvious.
- rstat1 3y ago> it would hurt investment in promising startups. Today, “company failed, but produced valuable IP” is a fallback outcome for investors. As long as those investors end up actually using those patents for something other than what is effectively legalized extortion who cares? Though I do generally agree reform is necessary, and it should have a bias against trivial nonsense getting patents. But also against people who stockpile patents for no other reason than to sue people.
- scarface_74 3y agoAnd if I invent something that improves a car, does that mean I should have to manufacturer a car instead of license to existing manufacturers?