Patents do more harm than good. Ideas aren't scarce and obviously, this is abused by bad players to restrict competition. Doesn't make sense to restrict the right of someone to do a sequence of calculations on his own computer.
I think patents are fine, but the criterion used to award them are strange.
We only need a simple criterion: absent this patent, would this technology have been invented anyway (within a reasonable timeframe)? Yes, then don't award a patent. It's a bit subjective, but so is "substantiality".
By this criterion, would a certain drug have been invented if it was not expected to receive a patent. That is usually a clear no. It takes a lot of money and resources to develop new drugs but little to copy, therefore companies would stop doing research altogether.
Another example, would e-ink displays have been invented if it was not rewarded a patent? Absolutely yes, by multiple independent parties probably, thus should not deserve a patent.
I don't think there is a single software patent that would pass this criterion.
> absent this patent, would this technology have been invented anyway (within a reasonable timeframe)?
This would be the criteria of non-obviousness that already exists in US patent law. The problem is it seems like lots of patent agents seem to approve what lots of people "skilled in the art" would consider obvious (one-click checkout? shopping cart? really?!). Which then requires some level of litigation to have a lot of people "skilled in the art" to testify of the obviousness of the patent.
IMO a lot of these patent issues we see today could be solved if we had more patent agents and more skilled patent agents, but then we've got a ton of otherwise smart engineers and other kinds of people spending their days reviewing patents instead of actually making new things.
> Another example, would e-ink displays have been invented if it was not rewarded a patent? Absolutely yes, by multiple independent parties probably, thus should not deserve a patent.
Tell us, how exactly do you think e-ink displays work? Because everytime I hear someone say exactly what you've said above, I've asked them to explain it and you know what, they talk about the rotating ball gyricon which is Xerox PARC's patent, or they talk about microcapsules (often googling it as they try to respond to me). I like to be specific since I work in the display industry and if you look at my comment history you'll see how disappointed I am with the lack of actual understanding of the technologies involved and the blaise reference to patents without knowing anything about what's limiting progress in electrophoretics. In short, physics is what is limiting it.
Would you say the concept of patents is inherently bad, or the current patent system?
Without some protection for original research being published, genuine inventors are forced to keep their ideas secret and/or find other ways to protect them.
> Without some protection for original research being published, genuine inventors are forced to keep their ideas secret and/or find other ways to protect them.
Publication of "secrets" and general know-how can be incented via post-facto prize awards. Unlike patents, these don't forbid anyone from making use of the innovation unless they pay up. They replace a focus on enforcement - with publication often a mere afterthought in practice - with one on publication itself.
Not sure I agree with that completely but I do think our patent system needs to be updated and overhauled.
Everyone shits on China for stealing ideas but at the same time the general culture there does not have the same respect for the idea of patenting an idea - for better or worse.
Personally I think there is a nice middle ground between those two
martindbp|4 years ago
We only need a simple criterion: absent this patent, would this technology have been invented anyway (within a reasonable timeframe)? Yes, then don't award a patent. It's a bit subjective, but so is "substantiality".
By this criterion, would a certain drug have been invented if it was not expected to receive a patent. That is usually a clear no. It takes a lot of money and resources to develop new drugs but little to copy, therefore companies would stop doing research altogether.
Another example, would e-ink displays have been invented if it was not rewarded a patent? Absolutely yes, by multiple independent parties probably, thus should not deserve a patent.
I don't think there is a single software patent that would pass this criterion.
vel0city|4 years ago
This would be the criteria of non-obviousness that already exists in US patent law. The problem is it seems like lots of patent agents seem to approve what lots of people "skilled in the art" would consider obvious (one-click checkout? shopping cart? really?!). Which then requires some level of litigation to have a lot of people "skilled in the art" to testify of the obviousness of the patent.
IMO a lot of these patent issues we see today could be solved if we had more patent agents and more skilled patent agents, but then we've got a ton of otherwise smart engineers and other kinds of people spending their days reviewing patents instead of actually making new things.
robinsoh|4 years ago
Tell us, how exactly do you think e-ink displays work? Because everytime I hear someone say exactly what you've said above, I've asked them to explain it and you know what, they talk about the rotating ball gyricon which is Xerox PARC's patent, or they talk about microcapsules (often googling it as they try to respond to me). I like to be specific since I work in the display industry and if you look at my comment history you'll see how disappointed I am with the lack of actual understanding of the technologies involved and the blaise reference to patents without knowing anything about what's limiting progress in electrophoretics. In short, physics is what is limiting it.
aunty_helen|4 years ago
That doesn't seem very likely.
naasking|4 years ago
Don't discount first mover advantage.
MattPalmer1086|4 years ago
Without some protection for original research being published, genuine inventors are forced to keep their ideas secret and/or find other ways to protect them.
JPLeRouzic|4 years ago
Nearly all big companies are involved in patent litigation, and unfortunately often it's and easy way to crush nascent competition.
zozbot234|4 years ago
Publication of "secrets" and general know-how can be incented via post-facto prize awards. Unlike patents, these don't forbid anyone from making use of the innovation unless they pay up. They replace a focus on enforcement - with publication often a mere afterthought in practice - with one on publication itself.
slowmovintarget|4 years ago
Melatonic|4 years ago
Everyone shits on China for stealing ideas but at the same time the general culture there does not have the same respect for the idea of patenting an idea - for better or worse.
Personally I think there is a nice middle ground between those two