5 ms·

> 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 therefor

> 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Surely you agree that if patents expire immediately on sale, they will never sell for anything above $0.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  And 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 ago
  As 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.

Iftheshoefits 13y ago

The 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 ago
Surely you agree that if patents expire immediately on sale, they will never sell for anything above $0.
mattlutze 13y ago
And 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 ago
As 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.