If you're not interested in business, you don't need to file patents. Patents only matter for business.

You have two options:
- file patents in name of your employer, thereby relinquishing any ownership
- file patents, but get a salesperson to handle the licensing paperwork on your behalf for commission

How would either of those really be better than having transferable patents?

[quote name='Antheus' timestamp='1336591764' post='4938740']
If you're not interested in business, you don't need to file patents. Patents only matter for business.

You have two options:
- file patents in name of your employer, thereby relinquishing any ownership
- file patents, but get a salesperson to handle the licensing paperwork on your behalf for commission

How would either of those really be better than having transferable patents?
[/quote]

They encourage in-house research - provide facilities and employ people in active research, rather than having shell companies full of MBAs and lawyers, milking off-shore suppliers for bargain bin contracts.

They eliminate trolling, hoarding and poaching of defunkt companies' IP.

They encourage technology licensing vs. blanket M&A based on portfolio sizes. Need a technology - there's an inventor you can buy it from. Instead of companies being structured around mass producing patents and selling them in bulk, without producing anything on their own. I encountered this in computer vision - a company has 40 or so PhDs employed full time to write patents. They skim academic publications and other works, then just file patent after patent without producing anything. They then sell these in bulk, since they don't hold on their own and since they don't produce anything. But they do benefit large companies who collect these so they can set up 2000-patent strong portfolios to control markets.

If patents were non-transferrable, they'd need to pursue alleged violators on their own, which involves a lot of lawyers and is very expensive. So they'd need to focus on high quality patents (difficult, requires original research). And if they make a solid business out of that, then it's fine, since they actually produce viable and commercially interesting innovations.

Much of what goes on right now are small claims, sometimes for several $1000, such as "using a drop down menu on a web page". Since these don't cover the cost of litigation, they are used to control the competition, especially in commodity markets with minimal profit margins.

Okay, I have no idea what the great gatsby is, what the 3D version is,

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1336568820' post='4938660']
cut

This kind of mentality is why things like 'The Great Gatsby' in 3D are allowed to be made. Just... sayin...
[/quote]...whether it's a problem that something is "allowed to be made". Nor do I know which of my posts you are actually referring to, at which argument of mine you are arguing against, or what your argument against me is
[/quote]

I meant it in reference to your apparent position that an artist shouldn't have control over their creation at all posthumously. I don't really hold a huge position on it, but I don't think it's so wrong for copyrights to work as they do now. I'd feel pretty shitty if my father wrote a book, then died, and a year after his death HBO/Universal/whatever made $200 million off his IP without throwing anything back to the people he left behind/cared most about.

They encourage in-house research - provide facilities and employ people in active research, rather than having shell companies full of MBAs and lawyers, milking off-shore suppliers for bargain bin contracts.

You mean like the stuff that goes on at places like IBM daily?

They eliminate trolling, hoarding and poaching of defunkt companies' IP.[/quote]
How does it eliminate trolling? The only difference is that instead of trolls owning IPs, I now license trolls to sue people over the IPs I own paying them a royalty. It would stop big companies from buying out companies for their patents, but big companies aren't really the ones abusing the patent system in an offensive way; it's much more a defensive strategy.

They encourage technology licensing vs. blanket M&A based on portfolio sizes. Need a technology - there's an inventor you can buy it from. Instead of companies being structured around mass producing patents and selling them in bulk, without producing anything on their own. I encountered this in computer vision - a company has 40 or so PhDs employed full time to write patents. They skim academic publications and other works, then just file patent after patent without producing anything. They then sell these in bulk, since they don't hold on their own and since they don't produce anything. But they do benefit large companies who collect these so they can set up 2000-patent strong portfolios to control markets.[/quote]
In what way would this solve anything if, "fil[ing] patents in name of your employer, thereby relinquishing any ownership," was still allowed?

If patents were non-transferrable, they'd need to pursue alleged violators on their own, which involves a lot of lawyers and is very expensive.[/quote]
Do you think patent lawsuits aren't very expensive the way it is now? If it weren't so expensive people wouldn't hoard them in order to prevent lawsuits.

I'd feel pretty shitty if my father wrote a book, then died, and a year after his death HBO/Universal/whatever made $200 million off his IP[/quote]

Art vs. business.

Why did he write a book? To profit off it? Then he wasn't too good at business.

The distorted view here is that copyright somehow entitles you to $200 million.

1) have a relative write a book
2) ???
3) profit

Profit and vast sums are something that is completely specific to purely capitalistic markets. In those markets, one that sells, wins. Can't monetize - die in poverty.

Book itself isn't worth anything in money. It's how it's marketed. Harry Potter would be nothing if the author hadn't done to just about every publisher only to be laughed at until she found someone who took a chance on her.

without throwing anything back to the people he left behind/cared most about.[/quote]

Wait, you didn't even write a book, nor have anything to do with it, but you somehow knew someone who cared about someone and you're entitled to $200 million?

Nope. World doesn't work that way.

Then again, as a European, there's 70% chance that I'm genetic offspring of Genghis Khan. By that consequence, I'm entitled to revenue of all copyright related materials of other 70% Europeans.

Or how far back does relationship go? What about step-brother/-sister? What about adopted children? Grandshildren? What about those twice-removed? Does it apply only to children or to parents as well? What about surrogate parents? What about incest, where one is their own uncle (it happens) - do they get twice the royalty?

Real world is so mindbogglingly complex it's just impossible to get to end of it.

You mean like the stuff that goes on at places like IBM daily?[/quote]

IBM couldn't invent to save their life.

They buy companies that invent, strip them, and store the IP. it's painfully obvious in software - from the moment it's acquired, IBM isn't capable of maintaining or fixing it anymore, since they simply don't have expertise in house anymore. Name any software product IBM markets - it was acquisition.

It has been their core business model for decades now, they're just refining it. IBM is M&A.

IBM couldn't invent to save their life.

They file more patents than any entity in the entire US and put $6 billion annually into RnD. Just saying they don't invent anything doesn't make it so.

Why did he write a book? To profit off it? Then he wasn't too good at business.

The distorted view here is that copyright somehow entitles you to $200 million.

1) have a relative write a book
2) ???
3) profit

So your suggestion would be that he forecast his own death, and get someone to write his book for him so that the copyright isn't void? Clearly not forecasting your own untimely death is a bad business decision...

Wait, you didn't even write a book, nor have anything to do with it, but you somehow knew someone who cared about someone and you're entitled to $200 million?[/quote]
You're right. We should throw out the idea of inheritance altogether. Why would it make any sense that your parents be able to give you their belongings after they die... We should just bury it with them or gift it to the government.

They file more patents than any entity in the entire US and put $6 billion annually into RnD. Just saying they don't invent anything doesn't make it so.[/quote]

Patent != invention
Quantity != quality

So your suggestion would be that he forecast his own death, and get someone to write his book for him so that the copyright isn't void? Clearly not forecasting your own untimely death is a bad business decision...[/quote]

I have no clue what that is supposed to mean or how it's related to anything.

Author of the book didn't sell it, didn't market it, didn't make money off it. He was writer, not a businessman, hence could not monetize it.

After copyright expired, some big studio came in and made a movie that earned $200 million.

And that is it.

Relatives don't factor into this.

They file more patents than any entity in the entire US and put $6 billion annually into RnD. Just saying they don't invent anything doesn't make it so.

Patent != invention
Quantity != quality[/quote]
http://ibmresearchnews.blogspot.ca/2012/02/inventors-corner-hall-of-fame-induction.html
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/37095.wss
http://ibmresearchnews.blogspot.ca/2012/03/it-nobel-awarded-to-ibm-researcher.html
Wat?

So your suggestion would be that he forecast his own death, and get someone to write his book for him so that the copyright isn't void? Clearly not forecasting your own untimely death is a bad business decision...[/quote]
I have no clue what that is supposed to mean or how it's related to anything.
[/quote]
It was my example that you replied to.

I meant it in reference to your apparent position that an artist shouldn't have control over their creation at all posthumously. I don't really hold a huge position on it, but I don't think it's so wrong for copyrights to work as they do now. I'd feel pretty shitty if my father wrote a book, then died, and a year after his death HBO/Universal/whatever made $200 million off his IP without throwing anything back to the people he left behind/cared most about.

Well, I'd be fine with say "Life or 30 years, whichever is the longer", to avoid that situation. Replace "30" with "10", "50" or whatever so long as it isn't a ludicrously long term.

Indeed I think there's a good argument to simply have a flat rate of say 30-50 years (let's not forget that the original copyright term was just 14 years IIRC). Some people support the idea that someone should have control for the duration of one's lifetime, okay fair enough - but the current situation where it lasts for a lifetime *and* a staggering 70 years after that seems rather ridiculous to me.

If your father wrote a book, then someone made $200 million 50 years later after he died - well tough luck. With that length of time, if something had that much potential, then I would hope movie producers would be contacting him for the rights anyway (and not worry about having to pay him). If he refused or asked an unreasonable price - well after that length of time, and when he's dead, I don't think it should be an issue. Yes I can see your point after 1 year - but after 50 years, you should be earning money like the rest of us, not living off what your father did 50 years ago. (And to be honest, even after just 1 year, I agree with Antheus; it does seem an extraordinary sense of entitlement to deserve the profits from other people's work - you neither made the movie, nor wrote the book.)

So your suggestion would be that he forecast his own death, and get someone to write his book for him so that the copyright isn't void? Clearly not forecasting your own untimely death is a bad business decision...[/quote]I'm not sure how "write his book for him" works - if someone else wrote it, then it's not his work. And I see even less reason why you are entitled to anything.

Yes I do see the point that if the book was written by two people, it's odd that it would then have a longer term than if one person wrote it and died. But then, that's an argument against the current system too! A solution would be, as I say above, to make it a fixed term independent of lifetime. That would be fine with me (so long as it also wasn't too long a term).