4 ms·

> Does anyone think the patent system is possibly worth saving? I think the original idea is worth saving. That is, they should incentivize people to publish d

> Does anyone think the patent system is possibly worth saving? I think the original idea is worth saving. That is, they should incentivize people to publish details about inventions that otherwise would remain trade secrets. I'm glad the inventor of Portland cement filed a patent, for example -- they did get an 20-year monopoly, but for over a century since then, the rest of us have benefited from a publicly known formula and process for the manufacture of Portland cement. Congress should write a law that reforms patents: (1) require them to be effectively how-to manuals: descriptive and complete enough to manufacture the thing from raw materials given the patent's instructions alone, and written in plain language (not legalese) easily readable by other technicians in the given field; (2) outlaw software patents, and (3) phase out patents granted since 2007 within 18 months unless they pass a re-review where they have to clear (1) and (2).

Anotheroneagain 3y ago
That has always been a bullshit justification. Inventions are not one off events, almost everything gets rediscovered many times, it's patents that make them so, and restrict the invention to something that can only happen once. It's basically a legal fiction.
- bbor 3y ago
  Ooo you just unlocked the whole thing for me. According the basic tenets of modern Standpoint theory (and really post-enlightenment empiricism more generally), any technical idea or expression only has meaning in the author’s particular linguistic/professional/intellectual context — in their “standpoint”. So our attempt to apply capitalist property notions to ideas fails from the jump, because our whole culture treats ideas as fallible individual beliefs, not eternal divine forms. Silly capitalist IP lawyers from the past few hundred years, their whole epistemic framework is inconsistent. Somebody should tell them, I’m sure they’d about face…
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  I don't think it was BS in the early days of the US, in medieval & renaissance Europe, and in antiquity. Life was harder, populations were orders of magnitude smaller, and a much smaller proportion of people had the means and education to invent things. The middle class was non-existent, and the most modern technology of the time was only available to an elite few. So the legal fiction that inventions could only happen "once" was not so terribly inaccurate; it was even useful. But I agree that given how many people have access to the means of invention today, patent systems have become an absurd notion, and they only create absurd results in the marketplace. The time for patent systems came and is now long gone. Thanks for changing my mind.
makeitdouble 3y ago
To further Anotheroneagain's point, the basic assumption is that an idea needs to be protected separate from the execution. And potentially, help small companies make the best from their invention. That flies in the face of reality where the devil is in the details, and the execution usually matters more than the idea. Then applying for patents is a burden for small companies that has little upside when the 500 pound gorrilla can step on them and litigate the hell out of it, dragging any court proceeding for years if not decades. Looking at the Masimo case for instance, even as they're clearly winning on the legal standpoint, Apple sold 3 generations of watches before anything happened, and the ban is only on the US imports until perhaps some more years of litigation.

Anotheroneagain 3y ago

That has always been a bullshit justification. Inventions are not one off events, almost everything gets rediscovered many times, it's patents that make them so, and restrict the invention to something that can only happen once. It's basically a legal fiction.

bbor 3y ago
Ooo you just unlocked the whole thing for me. According the basic tenets of modern Standpoint theory (and really post-enlightenment empiricism more generally), any technical idea or expression only has meaning in the author’s particular linguistic/professional/intellectual context — in their “standpoint”. So our attempt to apply capitalist property notions to ideas fails from the jump, because our whole culture treats ideas as fallible individual beliefs, not eternal divine forms. Silly capitalist IP lawyers from the past few hundred years, their whole epistemic framework is inconsistent. Somebody should tell them, I’m sure they’d about face…
TimTheTinker 3y ago
I don't think it was BS in the early days of the US, in medieval & renaissance Europe, and in antiquity. Life was harder, populations were orders of magnitude smaller, and a much smaller proportion of people had the means and education to invent things. The middle class was non-existent, and the most modern technology of the time was only available to an elite few. So the legal fiction that inventions could only happen "once" was not so terribly inaccurate; it was even useful. But I agree that given how many people have access to the means of invention today, patent systems have become an absurd notion, and they only create absurd results in the marketplace. The time for patent systems came and is now long gone. Thanks for changing my mind.

makeitdouble 3y ago

To further Anotheroneagain's point, the basic assumption is that an idea needs to be protected separate from the execution. And potentially, help small companies make the best from their invention. That flies in the face of reality where the devil is in the details, and the execution usually matters more than the idea. Then applying for patents is a burden for small companies that has little upside when the 500 pound gorrilla can step on them and litigate the hell out of it, dragging any court proceeding for years if not decades. Looking at the Masimo case for instance, even as they're clearly winning on the legal standpoint, Apple sold 3 generations of watches before anything happened, and the ban is only on the US imports until perhaps some more years of litigation.