2 ms·
The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house, it's a segment of the market where the government grants a company a
by mort96 3y ago
The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house, it's a segment of the market where the government grants a company a legal monopoly. I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly. If the idea was that the company which employed the people who invented something cool should "deserve" to get filthy rich (why do we want that again?), you'd think that could be achieved by forcing other companies who want to be in the same space to pay money to the company which employed the inventors.
But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". Why?
- caminante 3y ago> I don't understand why it should be a total legal monopoly... You're asking philosophical questions about the patent system. I'm not defending the patent system and IANAL. I recommend the wiki article to get an overview [0]. Your phrasing doesn't align with my understanding of patent law or the article's characterization of the situation. > The patent isn't personal property that the company "owns" like how a person owns a house... > But instead we apparently want to say, "no other company should be allowed to make a watch with a pulse oximeter for 20 years unless the company which employed the inventor agrees to it". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#Effects
- vel0city 3y agoApple didn't need to use this design to make a pulse oximeter. There are other ways to make them. It's just most of the commonly known other ways aren't as good or accurate as the one Masimo researched and designed.