3 ms·
Your first paragraph consists effectively of assertions without any sort of empirical support, and the second is at best an inappropriate generalization. The ab
by Iftheshoefits 13y ago
Your first paragraph consists effectively of assertions without any sort of empirical support, and the second is at best an inappropriate generalization. The ability to sell assets, in general, may be important for an efficient economy, but not necessarily in the case of specific assets, in this case patents, if you care to call them 'assets'.
Why should patents be assignable or transferable anyway? The assignment or transfer of a patent necessarily implies the original holder isn't interested in the state-conferred monopoly that a patent is, and therefore he's not interested in having a monopoly on the invention the patent covers. To my mind, the assignment of a patent should immediately expire and/or invalidate it.
- stormbrew 13y ago> The assignment or transfer of a patent necessarily implies the original holder isn't interested in the state-conferred monopoly that a patent is, and therefore he's not interested in having a monopoly on the invention the patent covers. It means no such thing. The monopoly has value whether they go through with production themselves or sell it. Selling it just realizes the value in the short term rather than the long.
- Iftheshoefits 13y agoThe monopoly no longer has value to the original holder once he sells it. He has realized the entire value of the monopoly for a short term profit. This isn't incompatible with the notion that, effective immediately upon such realization of value, the patent should expire. You may disagree that it should expire at that point; in which case we'll have to agree to disagree.
- qq66 13y agoSurely you agree that if patents expire immediately on sale, they will never sell for anything above $0.
- mattlutze 13y agoAnd should the purchasing party know that the patent will expire on the moment of purchase, the patent will hold no value and will never be purchased. There is a middle ground, where a patent once transferred by the original patent holder cannot be extended, or is perhaps reduced, or the patent cannot be resold. Something of the sort. This would maintain the patent's value for the inventor in a market, as well as provide reasonable measure against patents being scooped up and plaguing IT for decades. Better yet, though, no more software / algorithm patents.
- stormbrew 13y agoAs has been pointed out, if the patent expired on selling it would obviously have no selling value. But beyond that I'm really confused by your argument. You seem to think that someone files a patent because they hope to exclude people from its use, which is not what patents are intended to do at all. They are intended to allow an inventor to realize an incentivized value for the public disclosure of their invention. To that end it doesn't matter when the value is realized, the inventor has done their part by disclosing the invention to the public.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago> Why should patents be assignable or transferable anyway? Because the purpose of the patent system is to turn trade secrets into public assets. Bob the blacksmith's new alloy is not much of a public asset if for the first twenty years all we get are the few thousand horseshoes that Bob can hammer out. You are advocating a Chairman Mao patent system, with patents only benefiting garage semiconductor fabs and artisinal jet engine factories. The transferability of patents allows them to immediately be deployed throughout society.