Patents smart?

[Malak]

Just got to thinking about the point to patents recently, and how they seem to be unfair for business. A person can patent a concept that they don't know how to do, and then charge those that do. They can also sue people that come up with the same concept, perhaps even before them, simply because they own the idea. Owning ideas just sounds wrong to me.

Here's a quote taken from here

The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure, or FFII, described the decision as a "great victory for those who have campaigned to ensure that European innovation and competitiveness is protected from monopolization of software functionalities and business methods."

648 out of 729 voted against software patents in Europe. Seems like they are thinking along the same lines of me.

Comments?

 

[ElFenix]

if there is prior art you can't patent.

and i guess having your ideas that you spent money developing stolen and used by people who didn't develop them is fair?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Malak
A person can patent a concept that they don't know how to do, and then charge those that do.

A patent is an exchange. (1) You teach the world how to make your concept and then (2) a government gives you exclusive rights to that concept for about 2 decades.

If you can't do #1, the government won't give you #2. Meaning, if you don't know how to do it, how can you teach the world how to do it?

 

[Kadarin]

The concept of the patent is sound, but it shouldn't be applied to software or to intangible things like business models.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The concept of the patent is sound, but it shouldn't be applied to software or to intangible things like business models.

why not? software is just machine instructions. i suppose if you came up with a new thing for a machine to do you'd probably want to patent it. software is exactly that.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Intellectual Property is a vital part of the global economy.

 

[mrchan]

No patent means no R+D into developing anything. Bye bye cure for anything.

 

[purbeast0]

Did anyone else read the title as "Parents Smart? or bad for business?" .... or read the poll "Parents good for business?"

lol.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The concept of the patent is sound, but it shouldn't be applied to software or to intangible things like business models.

why not? software is just machine instructions. i suppose if you came up with a new thing for a machine to do you'd probably want to patent it. software is exactly that.

The problem with software is that the length of time the patent is in effect is 17 years.

 

[Yossarian]

Patents aren't "good" for business, they're essential for business.

 

[sohcrates]

let's play name the countries who's culture doesn't believe in protecting intellectual property for individuals

i'll start. China

any guesses on why their economy pales in comparison to ours and why we are so developed?

*note....everyone is catching up to us...us dominance is fleeting in many things

edit: patent reform is key though...existing system is dated. hope ebay case which is going to supreme court creates some new laws

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: sohcrates
let's play name the countries who's culture doesn't believe in protecting intellectual property for individuals

i'll start. China

any guesses on why their economy pales in comparison to ours and why we are so developed?

*note....everyone is catching up to us...us dominance is fleeting in many things

edit: patent reform is key though...existing system is dated. hope ebay case which is going to supreme court creates some new laws

yet isnt china one of the world's fastest growing economy?

IP is a pretty big part of doing business, if there werent patents, then how can you sell an invention without everyone just ripping off your idea and branding it as their own.

 

[phisrow]

The theory of the patent is quite noble, as it says in the constitution ?to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing, for limited Times, to Authors and Inventors, the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.? That is all fine and good. Our current system, on the other hand, is deepy screwed up, and likely to do us considerable harm in the near future.

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: phisrow
The theory of the patent is quite noble, as it says in the constitution ?to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing, for limited Times, to Authors and Inventors, the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.? That is all fine and good. Our current system, on the other hand, is deepy screwed up, and likely to do us considerable harm in the near future.

examples of what is wrong with our current system?

 

[Amused]

Discard intellectual property rights and you will remove all incentive for innovation and creativity.

Contrary to the so-called "anarchists" (communists in sheep's clothing), man does not create and innovate for altruistic reasons. He does so for monetary gain.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Amused
Discard intellectual property rights and you will remove all incentive for innovation and creativity.

Contrary to the so-called "anarchists" (communists in sheep's clothing), man does not create and innovate for altruistic reasons. He does so for monetary gain.

There seems to be 2 types of men. Those who think everyone is selfish, and those who don't.

Innovation still = money anyway, regardless if there are patents. The better product will get you more customers, so you still have competing businesses. There's no patent on cabinets, but there are thousands of companies that compete for customers. There's no patent on pizza, but Pizza Hut still gets competition.

Patents do not drive business in any way. They do not feed nor encourage innovation. They simply give a single person the right to do something, even if they weren't the first person to come up with the concept. The first come first serve idea presented is just not fair to people who come up with the same idea all on their own. Who has the right to tell a man he cannot make and profit from what he made himself?

 

[Firsttime]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
Did anyone else read the title as "Parents Smart? or bad for business?" .... or read the poll "Parents good for business?"

lol.

Yes, I was confused, but now it all makes sense. If I developed something and got almost nothing from it, I wouldn't devolpe anything else. Patents are there for a reason, to protect inventors.

 

[Martin]

patents are fine, they just need some reform IMO. For example, requiring some type of implementation, a prototype etc would prevent the kind of abuse we see from leeches like NTP, SCO etc.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Amused
Discard intellectual property rights and you will remove all incentive for innovation and creativity.

Contrary to the so-called "anarchists" (communists in sheep's clothing), man does not create and innovate for altruistic reasons. He does so for monetary gain.

There seems to be 2 types of men. Those who think everyone is selfish, and those who don't.

Innovation still = money anyway, regardless if there are patents. The better product will get you more customers, so you still have competing businesses. There's no patent on cabinets, but there are thousands of companies that compete for customers. There's no patent on pizza, but Pizza Hut still gets competition.

Patents do not drive business in any way. They do not feed nor encourage innovation. They simply give a single person the right to do something, even if they weren't the first person to come up with the concept. The first come first serve idea presented is just not fair to people who come up with the same idea all on their own. Who has the right to tell a man he cannot make and profit from what he made himself?

You are, quite simply, wrong. Comparing a trademarked company selling pizza to patents shows just how completely clueless you are.

An excellent example of patents and innovation are drugs. Without patents innovation in drugs would virtually end because any company who created a new drug would be robbed of the ability to recoup R&D costs, and make a profit.

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: Amused
Discard intellectual property rights and you will remove all incentive for innovation and creativity.

Contrary to the so-called "anarchists" (communists in sheep's clothing), man does not create and innovate for altruistic reasons. He does so for monetary gain.

There seems to be 2 types of men. Those who think everyone is selfish, and those who don't.

Innovation still = money anyway, regardless if there are patents. The better product will get you more customers, so you still have competing businesses. There's no patent on cabinets, but there are thousands of companies that compete for customers. There's no patent on pizza, but Pizza Hut still gets competition.

Patents do not drive business in any way. They do not feed nor encourage innovation. They simply give a single person the right to do something, even if they weren't the first person to come up with the concept. The first come first serve idea presented is just not fair to people who come up with the same idea all on their own. Who has the right to tell a man he cannot make and profit from what he made himself?

you are dumb. there is a difference between pizza and new drugs. there is no company in the world that would research new drugs if not for patent protection. They would not spend billions to create a drug that a competitor can get for free. it would be a game of waiting to steal intellectual property and nothing would get done

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: Firsttime
If I developed something and got almost nothing from it, I wouldn't devolpe anything else. Patents are there for a reason, to protect inventors.

The patent doesn't protect you, it inhibits others. The way it works now, even if someone comes up witht he idea all their own, they cannot market it because someone else owns the idea.

The proper protection is to keep people from stealing ideas to market instead of actually designing it themselves. For instance, if you have software source code that someone steals. If they actually write a program from scratch, and it works a lot like your software, there's no reason to inhibit them and protect you, that isn't fair. Same goes for any product.

Basically, the way it works now is that even if 100 people come up with a legit invention, if the invention is the same then only one of those people gets to market it, based on whoever was first to patent it. That's unfair business practice to me. What makes that one person more appropriate than the others?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Malak
The better product will get you more customers, so you still have competing businesses. There's no patent on cabinets, but there are thousands of companies that compete for customers. There's no patent on pizza, but Pizza Hut still gets competition.

Development cost for a "new" pizza invention: $10. Basically, it is the cost of the ingredients for a pizza or two. Patent cost to protect this pizza: $20,000. Cost for a competitor to copy the pizza design: $10. No one in their right mind would spend $20,000 on a $10 pizza design. That doesn't even include the idea that a new pizza is probably not "novel" nor is it probably "non-obvious".

Development cost for a new blockbuster drug: $1,000,000,000. Patent cost to protect this drug: $20,000. Cost for a competitor to copy the drug design: $10,000,000. It is no wonder that drug companies will pay tens of thousands to protect a $billion+ investment.

 

[EngenZerO]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The concept of the patent is sound, but it shouldn't be applied to software or to intangible things like business models.

hah, i work in the patent office in the business models group... :/

its the story of my life...

 

[Malak]

So then you are saying not a single health care professional really cares about your health, they only care about money? I think you guys think way too little about your fellow man.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Malak
So then you are saying not a single health care professional really cares about your health, they only care about money? I think you guys think way too little about your fellow man.

Name one scientist who is willing to work 20+ years without being paid today. Ok now name the 50+ needed for a new drug who will work without pay for that time. Finally, name the people who have ten million dollars to attempt to test it for FDA approval knowing that when it is approved any other drug company can copy it.