2 ms·

Huh? All your e-mail exchange proves is that he believed, at one point, patents were a good idea. In fact, it doesn't even prove that: If a stranger approached

Huh? All your e-mail exchange proves is that he believed, at one point, patents were a good idea. In fact, it doesn't even prove that: If a stranger approached me about my company's patents, you can bet I'd smile and nod say, "Yes, they're important", like he did -- regardless of what I actually believe. Establishing a written record of anything else sounds like a great way to throw that investment -- valuable or not -- in the trash. Especially when the remark is made to someone like you who then turns around and posts it to the public! As someone who both holds several patents and has actually seen this device in person, I think you're trying way too hard to craft your point. (throwaway because my anti-procrast is on, oh well)

logicallee 13y ago
Of course the email isn't meant to prove anything, I was just curious how long his development time took. I only asked about the length of time of development, nothing else, he volunteered the extra information, which is that he would not have been able to raise any money without them (including what sounds like a research grant) and that it was crucial to getting to market at all (or whatever he said). As it's all in the past, I don't see that this would help his patent case today in any way. ("Please uphold the patent, because I really needed it back when it was just an idea" doesn't seem a convincing reason to uphold a patent today, as they are now on the market.) So I read the information he volunteered as stemming from his experience and perspective, rather than his interests. I also see projects fail completely every day which could have succeeded with a minimum level of patent protection on their narrow inventions. So there may be a built-in survival bias, and you will not necessarily hear about these projects, which fail to raise even a preseed research grant "round" to complete development, but are abandoned isntead. Page Rank was also patented by Larry Page. In stark contrast to the view presented on Hacker News, ideas are extremely worthwhile and patents are one of the most important tools any entrepreneur has for getting to market with real innovation, which is unsure and costly, and requires people to buy in at a pre-revenue stage. The mechanism patents due this via is a full monopoly for a limited time. We can see this in the price set on this invention (that we're discussing), which is a monopoly price and will be upheld due to the fact that competitors are not allowed in the same space. In countries that do not acknowledge these patents, a $79 equivalent could appear shortly. It can even be objectively better. Nevertheless, this is the price we pay for this invention to exist at all, and but for the patent system this invention would not exist at all. (In reality.)

logicallee 13y ago

Of course the email isn't meant to prove anything, I was just curious how long his development time took. I only asked about the length of time of development, nothing else, he volunteered the extra information, which is that he would not have been able to raise any money without them (including what sounds like a research grant) and that it was crucial to getting to market at all (or whatever he said). As it's all in the past, I don't see that this would help his patent case today in any way. ("Please uphold the patent, because I really needed it back when it was just an idea" doesn't seem a convincing reason to uphold a patent today, as they are now on the market.) So I read the information he volunteered as stemming from his experience and perspective, rather than his interests. I also see projects fail completely every day which could have succeeded with a minimum level of patent protection on their narrow inventions. So there may be a built-in survival bias, and you will not necessarily hear about these projects, which fail to raise even a preseed research grant "round" to complete development, but are abandoned isntead. Page Rank was also patented by Larry Page. In stark contrast to the view presented on Hacker News, ideas are extremely worthwhile and patents are one of the most important tools any entrepreneur has for getting to market with real innovation, which is unsure and costly, and requires people to buy in at a pre-revenue stage. The mechanism patents due this via is a full monopoly for a limited time. We can see this in the price set on this invention (that we're discussing), which is a monopoly price and will be upheld due to the fact that competitors are not allowed in the same space. In countries that do not acknowledge these patents, a $79 equivalent could appear shortly. It can even be objectively better. Nevertheless, this is the price we pay for this invention to exist at all, and but for the patent system this invention would not exist at all. (In reality.)