People support patents because of this idea of it protecting the individual against big companies - but the practice seems opposite to the theory.

This only stems from abuse of patents which have allowed a whole host of trivial things that should never have been patented in the first place.


You also glossed over my comments of "Active Development" for my views on copyrights. If the last person who was granted creative control over a copyright lets it pass by, then it would pass into public domain as anything would now. Such a change to copyright likely wouldn't have that huge of a change in the big picture. It would offer fair protection to a handful of authors and content creators who choose to continue to develop a collection. Anyone doing a one off with no interest in expanding their work would simply allow it to fall along the path of current copyright. If you created a world/setting/character set with which you wanted to make many creations from, and choose to pass control on later in your career, then things stay under the creator's control.

[quote name='mdwh' timestamp='1336485552' post='4938376']
People support patents because of this idea of it protecting the individual against big companies - but the practice seems opposite to the theory.

This only stems from abuse of patents which have allowed a whole host of trivial things that should never have been patented in the first place.[/quote]It's conceivable that software patents might be a good thing in a world where we didn't have trivial things patented. Though I'd like to see reform of the patents granted (software or otherwise), before I ever consider lending my support to software patents.

You also glossed over my comments of "Active Development" for my views on copyrights. If the last person who was granted creative control over a copyright lets it pass by, then it would pass into public domain as anything would now. Such a change to copyright likely wouldn't have that huge of a change in the big picture. It would offer fair protection to a handful of authors and content creators who choose to continue to develop a collection. Anyone doing a one off with no interest in expanding their work would simply allow it to fall along the path of current copyright. If you created a world/setting/character set with which you wanted to make many creations from, and choose to pass control on later in your career, then things stay under the creator's control.[/quote]What counts as active? If people who have done nothing creative on the original work but simply inherited the rights, occasionally grant licences to make themselves lots of money for nothing, that's okay? What about all the historical works now in the public domain, that have been constantly under active development due to people creating derivative works - would the world be a better place if all those works were under the control of descendants of the original authors?

Also note that derivative works of your work would still be copyrighted. E.g., author A releases something, which becomes public domain. Author B creates a derivative work. You refer to "our" or "their" work, but if author B is still alive, then the collective work of A and B would still be covered by copyright.

What I disagree with is that if author C comes along and wants to make a derivative work of dead A's work, but with nothing based on B, that he should still be prevented from doing so because of copyright on a dead person's work. Your argument isn't about protecting a collective work whilst some authors are still alive - it's about trying to control who uses it, even after you are dead.

cut

This kind of mentality is why things like 'The Great Gatsby' in 3D are allowed to be made. Just... sayin...

Re: Patents

Make them non-transferrable.

- If company dies, patent expires, obviously exists as prior art - it offered no competitive advantage
- If filed by individual, it's registered to person and if they leave (company and such), they take it with them (incentivizes individuals to invent since they'll have bargaining position).

- Same as trademarks - use it or lose it. Either enforce a patent on everyone or lose it. Prevents cartels and backroom deals.


If you now develop a true innovation, something as revolutionary as 4-stroke engine, good for you, you'll be rich, dominate the market and advance transportation. It will have actual market value.

Otherwise, it's not worth anything, at least as far as market goes.

Re: Patents

Make them non-transferrable.

- If company dies, patent expires, obviously exists as prior art - it offered no competitive advantage
- If filed by individual, it's registered to person and if they leave (company and such), they take it with them (incentivizes individuals to invent since they'll have bargaining position).

- Same as trademarks - use it or lose it. Either enforce a patent on everyone or lose it. Prevents cartels and backroom deals.


If you now develop a true innovation, something as revolutionary as 4-stroke engine, good for you, you'll be rich, dominate the market and advance transportation. It will have actual market value.

Otherwise, it's not worth anything, at least as far as market goes.

I think the problem with non-transferable patents is it forces inventors to become business people. If all I want to do is invent, I don't want to get involved in licensing my patents; that would just waste my time. I think having subject matter experts be more involved in patent applications would solve a lot of the issues. A problem with that though would be that now we have an enormous backlog of trivial/non-original patents that would have to be re-evaluated.

edit: Cnet did a special when Buzz Out Loud was still running, and they mentioned possibly crowdsourcing the patent application process. Put it up for a while and allow people to flag things as obvious or having been previously patented or whatever; then patent officers would have a little more time to thoroughly look through the applications.

I think the problem with non-transferable patents is it forces inventors to become business people[/quote]

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

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

(Nor is it particularly fair to brush someone's arguments off as a "mentality", when you aren't willing to engage in the debate yourself. If you have some arguments against points I've made, please elaborate...)

- If company dies, patent expires, obviously exists as prior art - it offered no competitive advantage
- If filed by individual, it's registered to person and if they leave (company and such), they take it with them (incentivizes individuals to invent since they'll have bargaining position).

I don't disagree, but in the UK at least, I believe that patents are always filed by individuals. So they have to be transferred to a company, even if done by employees on work time.

So either we are always in the second situation - or the law should be changed to allow companies to register patents, which then die when the company dies.

What about if a company is bought out? Or splits up? I mean, I agree with the general idea - it's depressing the way rich companies can go around buying companies just to build up patents to then lock other companies out the market, when the company had nothing to do with developing the invention. But one might have to be careful of the wording on when exactly a patent expires because of this. E.g., if a company buys a smaller company, which then continues to operate as before, arguably in that case it would be unfair for the patent to expire. In contrast to a company buying another company to completely ditch everything, but just keep assets like patents - but it seems hard to frame a law to distinguish the line between those two cases.

I think the problem with non-transferable patents is it forces inventors to become business people. If all I want to do is invent, I don't want to get involved in licensing my patents; that would just waste my time.

What sort of situation are you referring to? An individual who just wants to create inventions? Or an employee of a company? For the latter, as I say above it's already the case that patents have to be transferred, though the company will handle all the legal business work for you.

For an individual, surely you have to do the licensing of patents now anyway? Out of interest, are there examples where someone has invented something, not engaged in any business, but been rewarded via patents? (But as I say, surely this would involve having to licence the patent, at least. Not to mention that the work of filing a patent still seems very much "business".)

What about if a company is bought out? Or splits up?[/quote]

At some point, the company is delisted, which means it died, so same rule applies.

Locking down to inventor means encouraging actual use and development of an invention. Let's say Joe's Shop Ltd. invents something Ford could use. Let Ford license it.

Current system heavily favors M&A approach and abuse of patent system.


Here's another example. Let's say I have $10,000. I lend $5000 of that to someone else which will require repayment of $5500. What is the most expensive car I can buy now?
a) $5000
b) $10000
c) $10500

Not so long ago, it was a).

Then it was changed to c). And the result was financial collapse of 2008. Banks were giving out mortgages and then traded with full sum of money (which didn't exist).

It's just a matter of policy, but it can have far reaching effects.

but just keep assets like patents[/quote]

Patents as assets are counter-productive to spirit of innovation. They don't encourage improvement, they encourage hoarding and extortion.

Let's say I buy a patent on circular widgets. When someone wants to license the patent, I say no. I don't make circular widgets, I don't have a factor, I don't even have a business. But I do have a patent and refuse to license it. Until someone does go and make such a widgets, upon which I sue them.

This is perfectly legal and even encouraged by current patent system. It's by far the most profitable way of doing business.


Patents should protect inventors and innovators by allowing them to build better products without fear of being ripped off. They shouldn't be property that one sits on.