3 ms·

I suspect if you tried to copy their idea it'll take you as much time as it took them if you want to match their algorithms. Meanwhile they're earning money and

by kaoD 12y ago

I suspect if you tried to copy their idea it'll take you as much time as it took them if you want to match their algorithms. Meanwhile they're earning money and popularity because they were the first to market. You might even find a better algorithm or at least match theirs, which adds another competitor to the market. In the end everyone (especially the consumer) wins. Not a very good defense of patents to be honest. ----- Also, this is not an instance of crap patents (rounded corners anyone?) which are the controversial ones. If I can copy your invention without any effort just by looking at it... is it even worth to grant the patent? Patents are a means to encourage companies to share trade secrets, not a tool to turn them into monopolies. If your trade secret is not secret, why would the people (remember the governments, i.e. the people, are the ones granting patents) grant you any privilege so you would disclose what is already public and/or obvious? OTOH, it's in the people's interests that Lift Labs share their data (which algorithms they tried, their performance, etc.) so a patent makes sense in this case. Patenting rounded corners? Not so much.

logicallee 12y ago
>I suspect if you tried to copy their idea it'll take you as much time as it took them if you want to match their algorithms. How long do you think it took them to get to just the current, non-waterproof (eating utensil!) stage? I invite you to write down a guess before continuing to read this comment. http://leadersinheels.com/tech/interview-anupam-pathak-founder-lift-labs/ http://leadersinheels.com/tech/interview-anupam-pathak-found... states "The entire process took about three years from start to finish." And whereas you open your comment "I suspect if you tried to copy..." but I hope you can extend that "you" to 3 years - or even six months - of Samsung, G.E., Roche, or Eli Lilly copying their prototype. Meanwhile, six months from now their prototype still won't be waterproof, and will still be the size it is now. Regarding the part after your ------: The problem is that what you call the "controversial" part is precisely the type of "idea-only" thing that is at issue here. If you're a product engineer for G.E. you can literally copy this invention in 6 months given nothing more than a budget of $1M and this video - literally zero other information. At $295 that equates to 3389 units sold worldwide to generate that in gross revenue. (Meanwhile "Approximately 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease each year" according to http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson_statistics http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson_statistics). If Eli Lilly had the right to do it, writing that check would be a no-brainer. How does Eli LIlly's manufacturing, distribution, and credibility in the medical space as well as access to care providers and brand name, relate to "Lift Labs"'s? If Eli Lilly were allowed to write that check and come onto market, six months from now Lift Labs would be a footnote. Instead Lift Labs is afforded the sole right to provide all 60,000 sufferers detected every year, and every existing sufferer, with their solution, as well as to license it to Eli Lilly or any other company it wants. This is progress in action.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by kaoD 12y ago

logicallee 12y ago

>I suspect if you tried to copy their idea it'll take you as much time as it took them if you want to match their algorithms. How long do you think it took them to get to just the current, non-waterproof (eating utensil!) stage? I invite you to write down a guess before continuing to read this comment. http://leadersinheels.com/tech/interview-anupam-pathak-founder-lift-labs/ http://leadersinheels.com/tech/interview-anupam-pathak-found... states "The entire process took about three years from start to finish." And whereas you open your comment "I suspect if you tried to copy..." but I hope you can extend that "you" to 3 years - or even six months - of Samsung, G.E., Roche, or Eli Lilly copying their prototype. Meanwhile, six months from now their prototype still won't be waterproof, and will still be the size it is now. Regarding the part after your ------: The problem is that what you call the "controversial" part is precisely the type of "idea-only" thing that is at issue here. If you're a product engineer for G.E. you can literally copy this invention in 6 months given nothing more than a budget of $1M and this video - literally zero other information. At $295 that equates to 3389 units sold worldwide to generate that in gross revenue. (Meanwhile "Approximately 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease each year" according to http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson_statistics http://www.pdf.org/en/parkinson_statistics). If Eli Lilly had the right to do it, writing that check would be a no-brainer. How does Eli LIlly's manufacturing, distribution, and credibility in the medical space as well as access to care providers and brand name, relate to "Lift Labs"'s? If Eli Lilly were allowed to write that check and come onto market, six months from now Lift Labs would be a footnote. Instead Lift Labs is afforded the sole right to provide all 60,000 sufferers detected every year, and every existing sufferer, with their solution, as well as to license it to Eli Lilly or any other company it wants. This is progress in action.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]