27 ms·

If the scale is exponential, it becomes billions of dollars to keep a patent after a couple decades. Then trillions, at some point after which they’ve decided t

If the scale is exponential, it becomes billions of dollars to keep a patent after a couple decades. Then trillions, at some point after which they’ve decided to give up the patent. Many companies are rich, but they aren’t infinitely rich.

freejazz 2y ago
Patents already have a limited term, why would we want this in a policy?
- jacobr1 2y ago
  The term is too long. This changes it from a fixed term, to a use-it-or-lose-it oriented policy.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Patent term is 20 years from the date of filing, and doesn't begin to run until the patent issues, which is usually years after it was filed. It's incomprehensible to me how you can seriously argue that the US patent term is too long but then should be replaced with a system that allows for an indefinite term. Do you know what a trade secret is? Trade secret already has an indefinite term. There's no reason why patent terms should be indefinite, it's antagonistic the concept of disclosure that is required to obtain a patent in the first place.
    - account42 2y ago
      > Patent term is 20 years from the date of filing, and doesn't begin to run until the patent issues, which is usually years after it was filed. It's incomprehensible to me how you can seriously argue that the US patent term is too long 20 years is too long for many things where after that time the technology is no longer relevant. Remember that the entire point of intellectual property is to encourage creation in order to enrich the commons. > but then should be replaced with a system that allows for an indefinite term. And exponentially increasing fee does not allow an indefinite term because noone has infinite money. At some point the fee will be more than the entire global wealth.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        >And exponentially increasing fee does not allow an indefinite term because noone has infinite money. At some point the fee will be more than the entire global wealth. Don't be obtuse. If 20 is too long, telling me that it can't actually be indefinite* isn't a great argument. So it can be 40 years if they pay? How is that better?!?
        0xBDB 2y ago
        Literally exponentially increasing means that if the fee is $2 in year one, it's just over a trillion bucks in year 40. Even with inflation, if a patent is important enough to someone to finance the entire welfare state, I say let them have it, and I'm an IP abolitionist too.
- jerojero 2y ago
  Current term is something like 70 years after the death of the author. It's simply too long for a world that moves this fast.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    You are thinking about copyright, which the fact that you can't discern between the two should probably be a sign to bow out of dictating IP policy.

freejazz 2y ago

Patents already have a limited term, why would we want this in a policy?

jacobr1 2y ago
The term is too long. This changes it from a fixed term, to a use-it-or-lose-it oriented policy.
- freejazz 2y ago
  Patent term is 20 years from the date of filing, and doesn't begin to run until the patent issues, which is usually years after it was filed. It's incomprehensible to me how you can seriously argue that the US patent term is too long but then should be replaced with a system that allows for an indefinite term. Do you know what a trade secret is? Trade secret already has an indefinite term. There's no reason why patent terms should be indefinite, it's antagonistic the concept of disclosure that is required to obtain a patent in the first place.
  - account42 2y ago
    > Patent term is 20 years from the date of filing, and doesn't begin to run until the patent issues, which is usually years after it was filed. It's incomprehensible to me how you can seriously argue that the US patent term is too long 20 years is too long for many things where after that time the technology is no longer relevant. Remember that the entire point of intellectual property is to encourage creation in order to enrich the commons. > but then should be replaced with a system that allows for an indefinite term. And exponentially increasing fee does not allow an indefinite term because noone has infinite money. At some point the fee will be more than the entire global wealth.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      >And exponentially increasing fee does not allow an indefinite term because noone has infinite money. At some point the fee will be more than the entire global wealth. Don't be obtuse. If 20 is too long, telling me that it can't actually be indefinite* isn't a great argument. So it can be 40 years if they pay? How is that better?!?
      - 0xBDB 2y ago
        Literally exponentially increasing means that if the fee is $2 in year one, it's just over a trillion bucks in year 40. Even with inflation, if a patent is important enough to someone to finance the entire welfare state, I say let them have it, and I'm an IP abolitionist too.
jerojero 2y ago
Current term is something like 70 years after the death of the author. It's simply too long for a world that moves this fast.
- freejazz 2y ago
  You are thinking about copyright, which the fact that you can't discern between the two should probably be a sign to bow out of dictating IP policy.