6 ms·
IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague pa
by xyst 3y ago
IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong.
You can’t invent anything or push something to market without stepping on at least 1 or more vague patents.
- jalino23 3y agocoughs in codec patents
- krzys 3y agointernal raw rolling eyes
- llamaInSouth 3y agoAt least, unlike copyright, patents don't last forever...
- tjfjr 3y agoCopyright protection does not last forever, though in my opinion it still lasts far too long.
- llamaInSouth 3y ago> Copyright protection does not last forever, if they finally stop extending it...
- eweise 3y agoFrom NYTimes "In court, Masimo detailed how Apple poached its top executives and more than a dozen other employees before later releasing a watch with pulse oximeter capabilities — which measures the percentage of oxygen that red blood cells carry from the lungs to the body — that were patented by Masimo." Doesn't sound like they accidentally stepped on a vague patent to me.
- drno123 3y agoPulse oxymeters exist for at least 30 years. What kind of patent does Masimo hold?
- dharmab 3y agohttps://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=US-10945648-B2 https://patents.google.com/patent/US10945648B2/en?oq=US-1094... It's fairly specific about an arrangement of sensors with specific capabilities.
- fuzzbazz 3y agoIf they make a version with only three photodiodes this patent will not apply.
- ceejayoz 3y agoDoes anyone know what specifically Masimo invented that Apple infringed upon? Pulse oximetry was in standard practice before the company existed, and Masimo's Wikipedia article doesn't mention Apple anywhere.
- 13of40 3y agoThis lists 10,912,502 and 10,945,648 as the patents, but if you get into the details the original complaint lists several more: https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337_1276_notice10262023sgl.pdf https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_no...
- freejazz 3y agoIf only there was a patent that explained specifically what Masimo invented, otherwise no one would ever know!
- ceejayoz 3y agoGiven there’s debate even amongst high powered patent lawyers, a layperson-friendly explanation of the specifics rather than “try to parse the patent applications” might still be somewhat valuable.
- tw04 3y ago>IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Sure, but Apple has made an entire business out of making lowball offers to companies that produce tech they want. Then offering to pay more if they can just get more data on the tech, before ultimately pulling out of negotiations entirely and just copying that tech whether through internal resources, or hiring resources from the company in question. They've decided it's cheaper to steal and then fight in court than to pay a fair market rate. Honestly given this has happened at least 10 times that I can recall off the top of my head, the Justice Department should be dropping a 50lbs sledgehammer of justice on them. At this point it's intentional and not just illegal but morally reprehensible.
- varispeed 3y agoThis is wrong way to deal with this kind of thing. Apple should have not been allowed to grow this big in the first place so they could pull these kind of tricks. Otherwise you'll be playing whack-a-mole. Correct way would be to force Apple to split into separate independent entities. This should apply to all other businesses too big to fail.
- throwaway894345 3y agoIs Apple "too big to fail"? What's the equivalent of a "bank run" for a tech company? Is an Apple failure likely to cause a Great Recession or Great Depression? To be clear, I'm not defending "too big to fail" banking policies; I just don't see how that applies to Apple.
- varispeed 3y agoMaybe I used wrong idiom, what I am trying to say is that Apple has too much power and this is bad for economy, because it reduces competition (as in they can buy any business they deem useful or destroy any they see as a threat).
- grecy 3y agoYou are correct because the patent system was not invented to help or hinder innovation. It was invented to help people get richer. It is working exactly as designed.
- golergka 3y agoHelping people who invest in innovation get richer is exactly what helps innovation.
- Baader-Meinhof 3y agoA lot of medicine requires $100's of millions of R&D, with a high chance of failure. No company would take that risk if their work wasn't protected. So at least in some fields, it spurs innovation.
- 6510 3y agoThe idea is good, the implementation is horrible. Perhaps a page with business logic is needed. What you expect from the patent, what a license will cost, what roi they expect per unit sold. If the intend is to either exploit the patent themselves, have others do it or some combination of the two. (rule out patents intended to hinder development) A description of the effort and expertise it took to develop the application. Perhaps one should submit a product for review and have the patent office list relevant patents along with the bill and/or contract. Like a modular system with a single check out. Add a 10-20% fee in case the patent office makes a mistake so that patent holders can still be paid. That would make sure the patent office would make an effort towards realistic fees. Just some dumb ideas I came up with just now, I'm sure others have much better ideas for improvements.
- simondotau 3y agoI wonder if that R&D would cost as much if the patent system wasn't so generous.
- callalex 3y agoSure, but the technology we’re discussing in this case existed before even the entire company that is suing Apple existed. There was no risk or inventing involved.
- mort96 3y agoMost of the investment into R&D for medicine is government-funded, it's just that a company ends up with the patent afterwards.
- golergka 3y ago> IP/patent law is holding back innovation. Prove me wrong. Would you be willing to invest your own savings into tech-centric startups if they wouldn't be able to legally defend the tech they invented?
- drekk 3y agoThe funny thing is I'm being compelled to invest my own savings (taxes) to fund R&D that is then patentable. It would be a huge improvement to directly pick what I'm subsidizing, and actually get to read the results I've paid for. Capitalism is a few centuries old. Statistically speaking it's most likely not the economic system we end up with forever. Optimizing for innovation under that constraint only seems premature. To channel Le Guin: "We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art. Very often in our art, the art of words."
- golergka 3y ago> I'm being compelled to invest my own savings (taxes) to fund R&D Taxation is, of course, theft, and any of it's use unethical — but I don't think this has anything to do with my question, which you haven't really answered. I wasn't asking about subsidising or donating either, my question was specifically about investment: act that assumes you expect the returns.
- adrr 3y agoCountries with very lenient enforcement of IP laws have very minimal innovation. Brazil, Argentina, India. Countries who haven't signed TRIPS almost no innovation, North Korea, Somalia. Countries with the strictest patent laws and enforcement are the leaders in innovation. Germany, US, South Korea. Strict enforcement of patent laws ensures that capital will be invested in innovation.
- drekk 3y agoConversely, I'm not going to need to ration insulin in Argentina, Brazil, or India. Can't speak to the DPRK or Somalia as I haven't been. If capital was allocated democratically rather than at the whim of companies (that end up chasing taxpayer subsidies anyways... SpaceX, Tesla, etc.) you wouldn't need to strictly enforce patent law. The risk is already being assumed mostly by the government for truly bleeding edge research. What we have in practice is a system where the cost is socialized and the benefit is privatized.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoThe whole insulin debacle is purely the USA’s fault. You don’t see similar problems in Europe even with strong IP protection.
- adrr 3y agoInsulin isn't covered by patent laws. You're free to take your capital and go start an insulin company and sell it at low prices.
- morsch 3y agoStrong handed IP enforcement is hardly the only thing Germany, the US and South Korea have in common. Etc for the other groups.
- adrr 3y agoIts more evidence than what the OP is providing with their argument that patents hold back innovation. I get downvoted for providing evidence and they got upvoted by for making some populist statement with no evidence.