patents (how they should be) and what is wrong with them today...

[akand074]

A good read about Thomas Jefferson on his views against patents:

http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/0...edom-of-ideas/

Very good read. Thank you for this.

[KiwiNZ]

I have a great idea for a patent. I describe it as a "circular rotating device". "Wheel" could be a catchy name for it.

Nothing is gained by reductio ad absurdum.

[alphacrucis2]

Nothing is gained by reductio ad absurdum.

A few years ago an "innovation patent" for the wheel was accepted by the patent office in Australia. It was done as a joke by a lawyer to demonstrate how absurd the system was. The patent office excuse was, well it would be struck down in court. So someone has to hire lawyers to get an absurd patent overturned which should never have been allowed in the first place.

[KiwiNZ]

A few years ago an "innovation patent" for the wheel was accepted by the patent office in Australia. It was done as a joke by a lawyer to demonstrate how absurd the system was. The patent office excuse was, well it would be struck down in court. So someone has to hire lawyers to get an absurd patent overturned which should never have been allowed in the first place.

Links?

[alphacrucis2]

Links?

It was quite a long time ago but I found this BBC article still up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm


While looking for that I also found this US patent for a method of using a swing.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html

[mips]

I don't have a problem with patents that are original but the majority of them are a load of BS and all the patent process has done is stifle innovation and create patent trolls.

As for software patents, they should not exist in the first place.

[KiwiNZ]

I don't have a problem with patents that are original but the majority of them are a load of BS and all the patent process has done is stifle innovation and create patent trolls.

As for software patents, they should not exist in the first place.

Can you quantify how the patent process has stiffled innovation ?

[mips]

Can you quantify how the patent process has stiffled innovation ?

First let me be clear and say not all patents, where something is unique and truly new I have no problem but patents today are so broad and vague and rarely novel.

Lets say you hold the patent to making widgets, I know how to make a better widget but it still relies partly on knowledge you used to make your widgets. So I'm kinda screwed unless I pay you royalties and there could be someone out there with an even better idea than mine that would also cut the cost in half for the consumer but due to me having to have to pay you royalties that is not possible. Who looses? The consumer & widget industry as a whole as you effectively have a stranglehold on the market.

I'm not saying all patents are bad, but patenting arbitery stuff like putting an antenna in a keyboard is just bs for example. An antenna can go anywhere and there is nothing novel about sticking it in your keyboard or on your roof.

Then there's also the legal cost aspect which is a potential barrier to smaller players into a market.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...-steam-engine/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6762450300057X
http://mises.org/daily/4018
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/069...SIN=0691143218

[aysiu]

Can you quantify how the patent process has stiffled innovation ?

How can you quantify what has been lost? It's like the record companies quantifying how much money they lost in sales because of music piracy--they lost money but any quantifying is pure speculation. You can quantify only what has been achieved, not what has been lost.

I would strongly suggest you listen to this episode of This American Life:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radi...patents-attack

Patents are great, when they work. Software patents there is almost no compelling case for.

Even for regular patents, the system really seems to reward big corporations that don't innovate, as opposed to the little actual inventors. Example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_kearns

[zekopeko]

Even for regular patents, the system really seems to reward big corporations that don't innovate, as opposed to the little actual inventors. Example here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_kearns

You do understand that your example is actually showing why patents make sense? If the guy didn't have a patent he wouldn't have received any money.

Another thing to understand is that the "little actual inventor" is an exception. You will usually have teams of people working to invent something because today's R&D is capital-intensive, especially in high tech industries.