3 ms·
All that suggests is that patents produced by academia have a really crappy ROI. Not surprised at all, given how little incentive academia has to produce market
by david-gpu 2y ago
All that suggests is that patents produced by academia have a really crappy ROI. Not surprised at all, given how little incentive academia has to produce marketable products.
Also, you directly contradict yourself when you state that (1) patents unfairly enrich their holders and (2) patents provide a poor ROI. Which way is it?
Example of what you said earlier -- you keep commenting under two different accounts.
>> [ME] Do patent protections provide them an incentive to do that research?
> [YOU] The main incentive is money, patents are seen as a moat to that
- aipatselarom 2y agoI've been consistently arguing for #2. None of the statements I wrote suggest that patents provide a significant financial (#1) or social benefit.
- fowsefnmw3 2y agoI suspect both are true, for different types of patents. Tons of low-quality, generic software patents are good for extracting small settlements. Especially when the firm wielding said patents can dissolve and reform overnight to dodge negative judgements, there's very little downside. Separately, funding serious research purely for the purposes of creating high quality patents does not seem like a winning proposition. Unsure of where creating patents in the normal course of business and using them for M&A leverage or for tit-for-tat deterrence falls on ROI scale.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]