7 ms·
We seriously need patent reform. I propose all patents should require a prototype to be demonstrated that embodies all claims in the patent.
by throwaway48476 2y ago
We seriously need patent reform. I propose all patents should require a prototype to be demonstrated that embodies all claims in the patent.
- fennecfoxy 2y agoExactly, patents used to be for inventors. Now they're for "idea men" MBAs that spitball some bullshit idea with the half-listened-to assistance of a couple tech people. I feel like there are so many patents in the pool that are just companies waiting for a technology to be actually invented by a clever engineer - but bc the company had the "idea" they have the rights to it. At that point we may as well automate it by having an LLM spit out ideas en masse.
- gleenn 2y agoWhile noble, the immediate strategy with that is that prototypes can be overwhelming expensive in time and money to produce. Patents are supposed to protect inventors, but if that's the bar then right out the gate you are favoring the corporate behemoths who have the resources and can then just snatch the idea and weasle out the not-so-resource laden inventor. This is the type of thing where there seems like there should be easy solutions to the problems but a little nuance reveals that these things are very lucrative and some level of corporate apparatus will find a way to abuse the system and reap potentially hefty winning at the expense of the actual people coming up with stuff.
- baby_souffle 2y agoWould a better approach be to limit the amount of damages that can be claimed to some multiple of whatever the patent generates in revenue? A patent that’s only sitting in a war chest and not being used to actually enrich the owner would be able to claim damages of zero if somebody else was found to be infringing
- throwaway48476 2y agoNo, inventions that are never produced have no value and do not need protection. For most things prototypes are cheap and production is expensive. The patent system already gives you a provisional year if you're not quite ready but want to stake a claim.
- nashashmi 2y ago[flagged]
- throwaway48476 2y agoFrom my perspective it is you that is the extremist. Patent office requires perpetual motion machines to come with a prototype, why not everything else as well.
- nashashmi 2y ago[flagged]
- throwaway48476 2y agoBluff and bluster.
- tdb7893 2y agoI get why it doesn't immediately need a prototype (I feel like there's a pretty obvious situation where someone has an idea and needs funding but wouldn't get funding without a patent). I don't get what the benefit is of never requiring one
- throwaway48476 2y agoPeople with ideas should be allowed to obstruct others that also have ideas but also the means to implement them. The world is improved by new inventions, not new theoretical inventions. The intent of the patent system is increase commerce and benefit the public.
- MrDrMcCoy 2y agoThe world is improved both by new inventions and theoretical inventions. Patents were intended to be a way to ensure that knowledge would spread while still ensuring that inventors get paid. Unfortunately, the chosen mechanism of monopoly for that financial incentive goes against the spirit of patents. A much better mechanism would be compulsory licensing, which would do much to foster competition and fair pricing.
- nashashmi 2y agoYou know, something far less intensive would be if any patent was used in an official lawsuit, it would have to be added to the record of the patent. This way the corp suing first and asking questions later would have disclose everyone it has sued. It would also open the door for many many disputes and ripples.
- throwaway48476 2y agoLawsuits are public and so are patents.