What do you think of the following proposal?

[Jaepheth]

Maybe patents should only be owned by the originating inventor(s) and non-transferable.

Then set a standard royalties amount and anyone wanting to produce your invention can do so without licensing it from you so long as they send you a check for the correct amount. A lower amount can be negotiated though, and that would be the incentive for a company to hire talented engineers/inventors since their employment contract would likely stipulate that inventions originating from their employees during their employment may be manufactured royalty free.

Basically, a company can no longer own a patent, but can rent the inventors and have free access to their inventions made during their employment with said company. All other companies also have undeniable access to all inventions, but will have to pay royalties.

 

[momeNt]

Anarchist, I thought you followed closely to Rothbardian principles on individual liberty.

Might I refer you to Man, Economy, and State where he discusses the differences between copyrights and patents and how copyrights are created by a free market and patents are state interference in a free market.

Let us consider copyright. A man writes a book or composes music. When he publishes the book or the sheet of music, he imprints on the first page the word "copyright." This indicates that any man who agrees to purchase this product also agrees as part of the exchange not to recopy or reproduce this work for sale. In other words, the author does not sell his property outright to the buyer; he sells it on condition that the buyer not reproduce it for sale. Since the buyer does not buy the property outright, but only on this condition, any infringement of the contract by him or a subsequent buyer is implicit theft and would be treated accordingly on the free market. The copyright is therefore a logical device of property right on the free market.

His thoughts on patents...

The patent is incompatible with the free market precisely to the extent that it goes beyond the copyright. The man who has not bought a machine and who arrives at the same invention independently, will, on the free market, be perfectly able to use and sell his invention. Patents prevents a man from using his invention even though all the property is his and he has not stolen the invention, either explicitly or implicitly, from the first inventor. Patents, therefore, are grants of exclusive monopoly privilege by the state and are invasive of property rights on the market.

I'd like to know why you think a freely made contractual obligation like a copyright shouldn't be protected and how prohibiting these contractual obligations wouldn't be construed as state interference. Patents I can agree with you on because of the simultaneous invention problem and how given that the patent expires it technically was property of the state.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I have a simpler solution - make it legal to import pharmaceutical drugs from outside the US. Pharma collusion and price gouging finished. Patents aren't really the problem here.

HAha, do you really want drugs from China or India? Countries that use packed saw dust and grass as brake pads.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not addressing buying competitors, but acquiring them for the sole purpose of acquiring their patents in order to destroy those that they had no legitimate right to attack before. The patent system was introduced for the purpose of fostering innovation and the protection of inventors. Apple buying out businesses to it can attack others does neither. It subverts protection and makes it a weapon.

I wasn't addressing buying competitors either. I'm addressing the same thing you're addressing, or at least, I think I am.

Are you trying to say that a patent should be personal to the original patent holder and hence non-transferable? If that were so, the patent would be far less valuable as the patent holder's incentive may be to sell the patent because he or she may not have the resources to produce and/or market the patented technology.

So far as a company buying a patent and using it to shut down competitors, I fail to see the problem there if these competitors are in fact infringing someone's patent.

Maybe it would help if you explained how you want to see the rules change.

 

[CPA]

Increasing filing fees would possibly discourage people from seeking a patent.

You could be first to the market and still make a profit; sure the risk is a little bit greater and the profit won't be as much, but it's still possible to invent something and make a profit without patents. You could pay your employees less, management and advertising could go with a smaller budget also. Big Pharma's profit margins are much higher than that of the average industry so they could still make a profit without patents. If they're so creative, then they're creative enough to run their company and do their research efficiently.

You don't need to be a corporation to file a patent. Again, I don't see how this does anything.

 

[Anarchist420]

Anarchist, I thought you followed closely to Rothbardian principles on individual liberty.

Might I refer you to Man, Economy, and State where he discusses the differences between copyrights and patents and how copyrights are created by a free market and patents are state interference in a free market.

His thoughts on patents...



I'd like to know why you think a freely made contractual obligation like a copyright shouldn't be protected and how prohibiting these contractual obligations wouldn't be construed as state interference. Patents I can agree with you on because of the simultaneous invention problem and how given that the patent expires it technically was property of the state.

Copyrights as a voluntary agreement and not enforced by the state are fine. I can see where the market could enforce copyrights.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So far as a company buying a patent and using it to shut down competitors, I fail to see the problem there if these competitors are in fact infringing someone's patent.

The difference between us is probably what we each expect from a patent system. My belief is that it's utility lies in protecting innovation by ensuring that intellectual property cannot be stolen yet it cannot be kept in perpetuity from the public domain where all can benefit. I don't find evidence that it was intended for any other purpose, such as Jobs getting even with Google.

If I were to make changes I would have it so that if the original patent holder saw fit not to engage in a lawsuit against someone then when the patent passes it could not be used as a weapon, and neither could a sale of company be materially dependent on the company to be purchased initiating legal action first. That would allow those who made an innovation to defend their rights based on the legitimacy of the patent in question.

I'm for the original intent as I see it not the use of the system to effect as close to a monopoly of a technology as possible.

 

[Ns1]

Think about this for a minute (I know it's hard for you), if you're running a pharmaceutical company, what incentive do you have to pour billions of dollars of research into a new drug, if you know that the moment you release, hell probably even before that, you will have copycat drugs. I know the hell I wouldn't, as it would make no economic sense at all.

Also, filing fees are a STATE issue not a federal issue. And what is the point in raising them?

shhhh, don't try to bring logic into this.

 

[woolfe9999]

The difference between us is probably what we each expect from a patent system. My belief is that it's utility lies in protecting innovation by ensuring that intellectual property cannot be stolen yet it cannot be kept in perpetuity from the public domain where all can benefit. I don't find evidence that it was intended for any other purpose, such as Jobs getting even with Google.

If I were to make changes I would have it so that if the original patent holder saw fit not to engage in a lawsuit against someone then when the patent passes it could not be used as a weapon, and neither could a sale of company be materially dependent on the company to be purchased initiating legal action first. That would allow those who made an innovation to defend their rights based on the legitimacy of the patent in question.

I'm for the original intent as I see it not the use of the system to effect as close to a monopoly of a technology as possible.

I think what you're arguing for here is a waiver of patent rights based upon a failure to enforce said rights against infringement, which waiver would be binding on successors-in-interest to the patents. I'm not an expert on patent law by any means, but unless I'm mistaken, that is already the law. The limitation is that the waiver must be a knowing one. Let's say you patent invention x. Someone then infringes on it, but you aren't aware of the infringement and so you take no action against it. Company A then buys your patent and discovers the infringement. Company A could sue the infringer. However, if you knew of the infringement and did nothing about it after a reasonable amount of time had gone buy, you have effectively waived your patent rights and any company buying such rights from you has bought nothing.

- wolf

 

[Munky]

HAha, do you really want drugs from China or India? Countries that use packed saw dust and grass as brake pads.

The same exact drugs are available to residents of Canada, Mexico or Europe much cheaper. We're not talking about some toxic knockoffs, your excuse is merely a red herring to divert from the fact that US residents are literally forced to buy from the local drug cartel.

 

[Texashiker]

Copyrights as a voluntary agreement and not enforced by the state are fine. I can see where the market could enforce copyrights.

You have never created anything, have you?

 

[Ausm]

You ever try smoking toluene? The shit blew up in my face.

 

[Infohawk]

This is a case where I'd like to see more experimentation, although granted it's hard to experiment here. What would happen to a country if things couldn't be patented? I really doubt people would stop making technological advances. If engineers have a better way to do things, I think they would just do it.

Copyright / trademark makes sense to me. Even extension of copyrights seems to make sense when you think of Mickey Mouse and Disney. Disney is doing a pretty good job managing Mickey Mouse. Why let everyone else weaken the product?

 

[Muse]

I'm against it.

 

[BladeVenom]

You need some copyright. I think it should go back to having the maximum copyright what it originally was 28 years. Start with an automatic 14 years, then registration for a 14 year extension, and put a tax on it. That way only things that are still being produced will be worth getting an extension for.

Penalties should be reasonable, and based on provable losses.