3 ms·

What deserves a patent is a, possibly large, investment needed to show that an abstract idea can be a practical. The magnitude of the investment is one of the

by ithkuil 13y ago

What deserves a patent is a, possibly large, investment needed to show that an abstract idea can be a practical. The magnitude of the investment is one of the reasons people tend to accept the concept of patents more in some field than in others.

TillE 13y ago
I'd be pretty happy with a system that gives only short-term (two-year?) patents on the current criteria, with a 5-10 year extension awarded only after presenting evidence of significant investment or extraordinary novelty to an independent panel of experts.
Ilmesnkie_Jones 13y ago
You can already get a patent on processes that turn an abstract idea into a practical application. That leaves open the door for other applications of the abstract idea to still be used.
Jare 13y ago
Exactly. Note that opposing patents on certain inventions doesn't mean you think the inventors don't deserve to get insanely rich by commercially exploiting them; it just means you don't think they deserve a government-backed protection to do so. So, what inventions should deserve such protection? For example, ideas which by their nature must be disclosed after a large investment in their development, but before having a chance to be placed in the market. Regulated industries like drugs come to mind. Even then, the extent of the protection should be limited to a (short) period to prepare and launch commercial exploitation of the idea. Therefore, the patent should include proof and plan for such commercialization of the idea.
netcan 13y ago
I think this is true from an economic engineering perspective. If a patent doesn't require investment, it doesn't need a patent to ensure that investment can be recovered. From an enforcement perspective it could get pretty ugly. Also, the law is at its best when it deals in definable concepts. Large is relative. For Google, an investment to large to be pursued on a whim has 4 or 5 more zeros than it does for me.
bo1024 13y ago
I disagree. Why does that deserve a patent? If a particular invention is created that realizes the idea, I agree that the invention should be patentable, but it sounds like your post advocates patents on scientific research.
- ithkuil 13y ago
  To be honest I'm not advocating anything. I'd like very much to live in a more enlightened age than this, but it's a good idea to understand how things work. If you need money to do something you will get it from someone who wants to get back something (modulo risk), and the patent system is one way to transform ideas in value that can be traded. It's not the only way, and not all the alternatives are better. My point was that as long as there is a real work behind a patent, people tend to show more understanding of the need of a patenting system, while being rightfully outraged in cases of patent trolls and/or plain bullshit.

by ithkuil 13y ago

TillE 13y ago

I'd be pretty happy with a system that gives only short-term (two-year?) patents on the current criteria, with a 5-10 year extension awarded only after presenting evidence of significant investment or extraordinary novelty to an independent panel of experts.

Ilmesnkie_Jones 13y ago

You can already get a patent on processes that turn an abstract idea into a practical application. That leaves open the door for other applications of the abstract idea to still be used.

Jare 13y ago

Exactly. Note that opposing patents on certain inventions doesn't mean you think the inventors don't deserve to get insanely rich by commercially exploiting them; it just means you don't think they deserve a government-backed protection to do so. So, what inventions should deserve such protection? For example, ideas which by their nature must be disclosed after a large investment in their development, but before having a chance to be placed in the market. Regulated industries like drugs come to mind. Even then, the extent of the protection should be limited to a (short) period to prepare and launch commercial exploitation of the idea. Therefore, the patent should include proof and plan for such commercialization of the idea.

netcan 13y ago

I think this is true from an economic engineering perspective. If a patent doesn't require investment, it doesn't need a patent to ensure that investment can be recovered. From an enforcement perspective it could get pretty ugly. Also, the law is at its best when it deals in definable concepts. Large is relative. For Google, an investment to large to be pursued on a whim has 4 or 5 more zeros than it does for me.

bo1024 13y ago

I disagree. Why does that deserve a patent? If a particular invention is created that realizes the idea, I agree that the invention should be patentable, but it sounds like your post advocates patents on scientific research.

ithkuil 13y ago
To be honest I'm not advocating anything. I'd like very much to live in a more enlightened age than this, but it's a good idea to understand how things work. If you need money to do something you will get it from someone who wants to get back something (modulo risk), and the patent system is one way to transform ideas in value that can be traded. It's not the only way, and not all the alternatives are better. My point was that as long as there is a real work behind a patent, people tend to show more understanding of the need of a patenting system, while being rightfully outraged in cases of patent trolls and/or plain bullshit.