Do patents inhibit development in the technology?

[Dr. Courtney]

I believe knowledge should be free. How can we progress if innovation is slowed by a wall of paper?

This is my view, and I have published detailed descriptions of several of my novel inventions (novel enough for peer reviewed papers) without filing the need for patents.

When people call or email asking, "Can we buy one of those from you?"

I answer sorry, "We don't sell them, but we can walk you through making one from hardware store materials without any cost to you." If they can't figure it out from there, I offer to show up in person and help them assemble one of my inventions for cost of travel plus my usual consulting fee (not cheap, but still less than what buying the invention would be if we productized it.)

I also release all the software I've written that has potential value through the usual FREE download sites or share freely with someone just for the asking (complete with tech support). Usually the first few hours of tech support are free, but at some point, I may invoke my usual consulting fee. (The threshold for getting hit with the consulting fee is lower for industrial uses than for pure research.)

My point is I put my "money where my mouth is" with respect to MY OWN intellectual property. The gnu peeps trained me well.

However, I don't usually complain when the view of others on how to profit from THEIR inventions differs from my view of how to profit from MY inventions. I try and pass along my gnu-like ethic to my students and mentees and protoges, but ultimately, it's up to them.

 

[SWB123]

Was thinking about this the other day. Does anyone know if the patent process (edit: I meant in other countries) has any sort of use it or lose to clause to keep people from patenting stuff and just sitting on it?

I don't know if I buy that it would inhibit creativity if the patent process wasn't in place, I think creative people create. However in this day and age of predatory and immoral corporate structures and with how information is so accessible and how quickly it moves I think the patent process is definitely important for protecting individuals and their ideas.

This seemed unnecessarily aggressive. Did the OP wrong you in a previous thread or did the topic just trigger you?

Inventors who must survive, and who don't have the funding to manufacture, or are not even able to pay to have it done are pressured all the time, into selling out to companies, which have no intention of doing ANYTHING with it, if ever; or, until their own patents run out! Seeing as an inventor who has a patent valuable enough sells their patent 'out right', can 'on average' expect to get 5% of the total sales during the course of the patent! I watch weekly in amazement, as people who have been given a chance to impress the Sharks, leave a perfectly good deal on the table, as I shout at my TV: "Take the money and run!" - Apparently, they can't hear me!

 

[newjerseyrunner]

It's both in my opinion. Patents protect new technology and allows their inventors to make some money from them. It also gives us some protection from employers who didn't do anything from stealing property. I was hired here I'm sure partly because I have a technology that my company needed. I invented it by myself, before I worked here. So if I leave for any reason, they aren't allowed to just keep using my technology without licensing it from me.

However, it also allows big corporations to pretty much force people like me to do whatever they want. Lots of people invent things, sell them, then a big company will buy a similar patent for no reason other than to say that they own the intellectual property and force the engineer to stop. Most tech patents aren't ever used, they are just bought up so that nobody else can use them.

 

[RogueOne]

Got me there. in a perfect world advancement wouldn't be a by-product of the quest for money. Advancement should be rewarded,yes, but it should be reward enough in itself.

Good luck getting a business to invest in your (often expensive) research if they aren't protected from a competitor stealing and profiting from the innovation that they funded.

If there is any question about whether or not patents inhibit innovation, just look at a country that doesn't respect patents. China is the perfect example. They do not honor patents. Therefore, not much innovation happens in China. Companies that do business in any capacity with china usually try to shield their newest technology developments from China, because they know that they will be stolen in that country.

If people could steal innovations from other people more easily, then they would take the fruits of that technology instead of investing in their own innovations.

Keep in mind that I do know there are imperfections in the patent system that are sometimes destructive. One thing that makes my blood boil is how the FDA handles drug patents in some cases (basically cartel behavior). However, the patent system is an astronomical net-gain for innovation. There are some improvements and innovations that we would like to make to the patent system itself, however, those innovations are patent protected and can't be implemented until they expire. XD

 

[Borek]

If there is any question about whether or not patents inhibit innovation, just look at a country that doesn't respect patents. China is the perfect example. They do not honor patents. Therefore, not much innovation happens in China. Companies that do business in any capacity with china usually try to shield their newest technology developments from China, because they know that they will be stolen in that country.

I must say I find it - in a way - funny when I see Chinese companies asking people to not buy products from copycats. Happened to me several times in the last months, for example with a DSO138 DIY oscilloscope kit. Karma strikes back.

 

[Dale]

In my experience with inventors I find that all of them are interested in the technologies that they invent. Surprisingly, a very high percentage of them are also interested in things like food. Patents allow them to offer something of value to the market so that they can pursue both their technological interests and also their food interests.

I personally believe that a system which allows inventors to both invent and eat is a system that increases the pace of invention.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I believe knowledge should be free.

In theory, patents reveal how an invention works. This is different from a trade secret. You can even download patents for free from the USPTO. I think Tesla's are still there.

How can we progress if innovation is slowed by a wall of paper?

No problem, if we define "progress" as more money for the 0.001%.

Of course these very few at the top tend to not be the actual inventors. To paraphrase Gordon Gekko, they do not create anything. They own. They have the capital, the lawyers, and perhaps the judges and politicians. You can search online and quickly find lots of information about this.

By the way, as we consider patents here on the WWW, we should remember Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the WWW, but did not file a patent, and therefore did not make tons of money from it. He wanted to share his invention with the world.

We should also remember British Telecom, who tried to patent hyperlinks. I wonder how much money was paid to lawyers on that one. What would have happened to the WWW if people were required to pay BT for using hyperlinks?

There are many inventors who were not thinking specifically about making money when they invented. Consider, for example, Kalachnikov, the inventor of the AK-47, or Lavrentiev, the inventor of the magnetic confinement fusion reactor.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

In my experience with inventors I find that all of them are interested in the technologies that they invent. Surprisingly, a very high percentage of them are also interested in things like food. Patents allow them to offer something of value to the market so that they can pursue both their technological interests and also their food interests.

I personally believe that a system which allows inventors to both invent and eat is a system that increases the pace of invention.

According to every source I've seen, at least 95% of inventors never make money from their patents. Perhaps those figures are wrong.

There are many ways to make money which are easier and more lucrative than becoming an inventor. I've read books by business types where they make fun of inventors and the way they get exploited by those who understand business.

Of course it all depends on the economic context. If you live in a society where life is basically a desperate fight over money, then it's only natural to see everything in terms of money. I think this is not the optimal society for scientific discovery or invention.

 

[Dale]

According to every source I've seen, at least 95% of inventors never make money from their patents.

Please cite one such source. I suspect such sources have very severe methodological weaknesses, such as just regurgitating made up numbers or ignoring certain kinds of revenue arrangements.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

Please cite one such source. I suspect such sources have very severe methodological weaknesses, such as just regurgitating made up numbers or ignoring certain kinds of revenue arrangements.

Here are a couple from Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2014/06/18/13633/#2fa8341b6f1c

https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhi...atents-are-just-about-worthless/#1e578f0b3ef3

 

[Dale]

The first source said "95 percent [of patents] fail to be licensed or commercialized" which is a very different claim than your claim that "at least 95% of inventors never make money from their patents". I didn't see any relevant statement in the second source.

The sources do not appear to support your claim. Nor does either source describe the methodology used for making such a claim.

 

[Aufbauwerk 2045]

I just drew a logical conclusion. If 95% of patents are not licensed or commercialized, then how do the inventors who file those unlicensed and uncommercialized patents make any money from them? My assumption is that if you do not license or commercialize a patent, you do not make money from it. But perhaps I am wrong?

Maybe the figure is wrong too. It's not my claim, just something I read.

I could come up with some idea, and file a software patent application, and perhaps get it approved by the USPTO. So then I can tell people I have a patent. What then? How would I make money, other than from licensing or commercializing my patent? Actually that would be very useful knowledge, so I am keen to learn. I include selling the patent to an "intellectual property" company or some other company as a form of commercializing. Or do I misunderstand what it means to "commercialize" a patent?

As far as the methodology, I have no idea. I'm not a business type, so I just assume Forbes is credible. Perhaps I am wrong about that too?

Do you have a methodology that shows the percentage of patents that do make money for the inventors?