4 ms·

I like Bezos's suggestion of having shorter patents for software. 3-5 years is enough to protect innovators, but not long enough to stifle further innovation,

I like Bezos's suggestion of having shorter patents for software. 3-5 years is enough to protect innovators, but not long enough to stifle further innovation, and probably not long enough for patent trolls to purchase and then sue people.

mikeash 14y ago
How about exponentially increasing renewal fees? $1 for the first year, $2 for the second, $4 for the first, etc. If the patent is valuable then the owner can keep it going longer, but it will still become unsustainably expensive before too long, and huge portfolios of long-lived patents would be impractical.
- danielweber 14y ago
  I once suggested this for copyright terms, but someone pointed out a big problem: what is the unit that that "$1" fee covers? I can write an entire book under 1 copyright, easily keeping it going for a decade with your regime. But a photographer produces hundreds or thousands of copyrighted works a year. You might try doing your regime with the number of claims, and the company can decide how many to keep fresh, but it then leads to weird edge-cases like keeping a few things secret for now to patent later -- which is the opposite of what the patent system intends. Patents encourage people to publish their inventions for others to study, in exchange for limited exclusivity to market and/or use their invention.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Yeah, I don't think it works for copyrights, but patents already seem to have this solved. There's already a set unit for them, and they already cost a substantial amount of money (unlike copyright, which is currently free). Keeping things secret now to patent them later is a problem, but no worse than it is now, I think. The same incentives apply to the exponential scheme as to the current hard limit. You'd keep the requirement to file within a certain time of the first public reveal, so you'd have to move quickly if you wanted to patent anything you were actually going to use.
pilgrim689 14y ago
I don't really understand the need for any of it. Has it been shown that innovating startups actually use patents to the market's benefit?

mikeash 14y ago

How about exponentially increasing renewal fees? $1 for the first year, $2 for the second, $4 for the first, etc. If the patent is valuable then the owner can keep it going longer, but it will still become unsustainably expensive before too long, and huge portfolios of long-lived patents would be impractical.

danielweber 14y ago
I once suggested this for copyright terms, but someone pointed out a big problem: what is the unit that that "$1" fee covers? I can write an entire book under 1 copyright, easily keeping it going for a decade with your regime. But a photographer produces hundreds or thousands of copyrighted works a year. You might try doing your regime with the number of claims, and the company can decide how many to keep fresh, but it then leads to weird edge-cases like keeping a few things secret for now to patent later -- which is the opposite of what the patent system intends. Patents encourage people to publish their inventions for others to study, in exchange for limited exclusivity to market and/or use their invention.
- mikeash 14y ago
  Yeah, I don't think it works for copyrights, but patents already seem to have this solved. There's already a set unit for them, and they already cost a substantial amount of money (unlike copyright, which is currently free). Keeping things secret now to patent them later is a problem, but no worse than it is now, I think. The same incentives apply to the exponential scheme as to the current hard limit. You'd keep the requirement to file within a certain time of the first public reveal, so you'd have to move quickly if you wanted to patent anything you were actually going to use.

pilgrim689 14y ago

I don't really understand the need for any of it. Has it been shown that innovating startups actually use patents to the market's benefit?