3 ms·

While noble, the immediate strategy with that is that prototypes can be overwhelming expensive in time and money to produce. Patents are supposed to protect inv

by gleenn 2y ago

While 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 ago
Would 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 ago
No, 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 ago
    From 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 ago
        Bluff and bluster.
tdb7893 2y ago
I 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 ago
  People 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 ago
    The 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.

by gleenn 2y ago

baby_souffle 2y ago

Would 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 ago

No, 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 ago
  From 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 ago
      Bluff and bluster.

tdb7893 2y ago

I 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 ago
People 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 ago
  The 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.