Do patents inhibit development in the technology?

[Jonathan Scott]

Has anything changed? Again, I am quoting from memory, but as the story goes, back in the time when the copper oxide rectifier was invented, to avoid competition someone patented use of all metals in similar devices for AC rectification (without proving it works). That proved to be ineffective, as the next invention was a selenium rectifier, and selenium is not a metal.

I don't think patenting ideas defensively in that way is new. It's doing it for what I called "weak ideas", that is stuff which I wouldn't consider patentable, just in case someone else might manage to get it past the patent examiner.

 

[Astronuc]

Some companies that I have had contact with now use the lockdown principle rather than patents . They develop they products and establish the entire manufacturing and distribution systems needed for the product in complete secrecy . They take the view that taking out a patent just basically tells half the world what they have invented and makes a gift of all their work to the many potential competitors and pirates ready to pounce and bring out parallel products .

This is basically my experience. Most of the technology to which I have been granted access is considered "trade secret" and therefore not disclosed publicly. Some technology that is seemingly rather obvious, is patented to prevent someone else, particularly a competitor, from discovering that piece of technology.

There seems to be two threads of discussion in the current discussion: 1) whether or not patents inhibit (or impede) development in the technology, and 2) the effectiveness (or abuse) of the patent process. I understand that the patent process has evolved relatively recently, such that in some cases, it does seem to adversely affect implementation of technology. That however is a different matter. On the other hand, an impediment provides an incentive to improvise technology to circumvent the impediment.

It used to be that three strict criteria were employed in assessing a patent application: The product or process must be new (not previously described or employed), it must be useful (provide a useful function in the economy), and it must be non-obvious (effectively unknown or not obvious to other practitioners in the art/technology). I've seen many cases where one or more of these three criteria do not apply.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

It used to be that three strict criteria were employed in assessing a patent application: The product or process must be new (not previously described or employed), it must be useful (provide a useful function in the economy), and it must be non-obvious (effectively unknown or not obvious to other practitioners in the art/technology). I've seen many cases where one or more of these three criteria do not apply.

"Non-obvious" is a problem. In recent years, I've seen far too many cases where I consider the novel aspect totally obvious.

"Obvious" is however very subjective. My first two patents were hard work to invent and write up, and never seemed at all obvious. My third was the opposite; I was waiting to use a meeting room but a previous meeting, for another team in the same department, was overrunning so I crept in at the back to wait. They had a list of possible approaches to a complex technical problem, all of which had serious drawbacks, and were trying to choose between them. It seemed to me that there was another "obvious" approach which they had overlooked, and eventually I couldn't resist suggesting it. Most of the room seemed to think I didn't even understand the problem, so it wasn't "obvious" to them, but the team leader quickly picked up on what I was suggesting and explained it to the others, and they went through the checklist and this time it had none of the drawbacks, so he said he'd write it up for the next meeting, and they all left and I got my meeting room. Anyway, I forgot about it after that until some time the following year when I was mysteriously asked to come and sign something in order to release an award payment. I found that the team leader had filed for a patent on the how that development item worked (including my idea) and had kindly included my name among the inventors, but as he had incorrectly been copying all related correspondence to the wrong email address I had never heard anything about it until it reached the point at which I had to sign as an inventor in order to release the award payment. So all I did that time was suggest something that to me seemed obvious, but which clearly wasn't to most of a roomful of experts, which I guess made it non-obvious.

 

[vela]

The idea of the 70 years is apparently based on allowing the next generation of the composer's descendants to profit from his or her work.

I question why this idea even has merit. I can understand allowing the composer to benefit for a fixed period of time (that shouldn't have anything to do with lifespan), but why should the descendants have any claim? Anyway, I thought this was part of the rationalization for getting Congress to extend the term of copyright so Disney didn't lose its exclusive control over Mickey Mouse.

I think the intent of patents and copyright is good, but the implementation has unfortunately been flawed. In the case of copyright, it seems that it's now a tool for powerful corporate interests, like Disney, to keep competitors out indefinitely. The patent system suffers from bad patents regularly being issued, allowing companies and patent trolls to extort money from others. I have some sympathy for the patent office though. It's flooded by tons of patent applications, and the examiners really don't have the resources to check them out fully. It's not surprising that obvious ideas that shouldn't get patent protection manage to slip through the cracks.

 

[vela]

However, the "design patent" concept (the "look and feel") seems more difficult to justify, especially when Apple managed to use one for a while to assert exclusive rights to make phones which are rectangular with rounded corners!

I can understand the idea of a design patent, and I think it's justified. Companies can go to considerable effort in designing how a product looks and feels. Car manufacturers, for example, don't simply throw together different features to produce a car; they also spend time and effort put them into a sexy package that people will want to buy and be seen driving. It makes sense that they don't want competitors to bypass all that effort and be allowed to simply copy the look and feel of their product.

I think you've mischaracterized the Apple vs. Samsung situation. Apple wasn't claiming it was the only one that could make a phone with rounded corners. The claim was that Samsung intentionally made a phone that so closely copied the appearance of the iPhone that it would lead to consumer confusing the two products, and part of the description of the iPhone was that it was rectangular and had rounded corners. In fact, IIRC, Google had warned Samsung while the phone was being developed that it looked too much like an iPhone and that they'd get into legal trouble for it.

 

[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?