/sci/ientistsA question: The Patent SystemNet negative or net positive?Consider all facets.Does this antiquated system slow us down as a civilization or not?
>>16862453I suppose if I wait around for the next renaissance, I'll get my answer, if it comes out of China.
>>16862453The concept of patents provides an incentive for innovation even if one does not have the necessary capital to market the product. It also creates an alternative to a much more clandestine system where every company has a billion trade secrets which they have every incentive to gatekeep from the public.It's not simply a "nuh uh! I did it first!" It's a public disclosure of your idea and all necessary components to make it work. Anyone may replicate the idea themselves if they have the capacity to do so. The patent only prevents you from profiting from the idea without paying the necessary royalties.If patents weren't a thing, every manufacturing process and non-obvious design choice would be a closely guarded industry secret, which is much worse for innovation than a paywall that only applies if you intend to make money from it.
>>16862453It is a net positive. Without it, you cannot have any hope of recouping the multi year effort from realising an invention to turning it into a product on the shelves. Instead, the big established companies would take control and crush small competitors, since the companies that have more to earn on stagnation than innovation. Think of the Kodak fall but across all fields.For pharmaceuticals, development can take decades.t.European patent attorney, former scientist
>>16862453A circus!?! Already?!?
>>16862490This is the only sound argument so far, that I have seen, in favor of the patent system.The rest are all selfish horse shit about how "What if the little guy wants to make money, but someone does it better and cheaper!?!?"
>>16862490>>16862924On that note, if the patent system didn't exist, there still wouldn't be trade secrets for most industries.Given inspection and industry requirements, many industries would need to explicitly declare processes for inspection purposes.>Welding company>Trade secret weld technology>Weld inspector looks at welds>How the fuck did you do this?>We can't tell you.>Then you can't work on any of my fucking bridges.>Ok, we can tell you.>I know.
>>16862490The problem here is that patents have not gotten rid of trade secrets. Companies still do have mountains of secrets that they refuse to patent because the patent will expire and they figure nobody will figure it out.Second, patent abuse is rampant. There's been some threads about a Rothschild patent troll who patents frivolous vague things then takes people to court and 90% of them just settle out of court because it's cheaper than litigating.
>>16862927So trade secrets are a regulatory hurdle that the patent office doesn't clear.Inspection requirements and regulation can.
>>16862927It depends on the field you are looking at. A lot of things are highly secret in their early formulations but then a real edge is gained through power/resources and then the secrecy is irrelevant. Look at pharma. The threat of generics are always present so they develop particular kinds of interactions or leverage on society to further their edge. Purdue updates their Oxycontin formulation to be harder to crush up, some kind of glue-paper. They bitched out the government saying it would be a tragedy to allow generics to release the same product they released a few years earlier. Try to amass enough power to construct hurdles for your competition in every way possible. A good business will not need genius to keep it afloat. In fact, such a requirement is virtually presigning its bankruptcy. Secrets are similar. If your business is one bad disclosure away from failure, then you are in some deep shit.
>>16862925>the patent system didn't exist, there still wouldn't be trade secrets for most industries.>>16862927>The problem here is that patents have not gotten rid of trade secretsSeeing these posts side by side made me kek.
>>16862927I patented trade secrets are dangerous, it only takes one guy switching sides for your competitor to patent it and make your business impossible.Most trade secrets are ideas that you could not patent even if you wanted to, often because they had been patented long ago.Before patents industry had trouble developing for a number of reasons, but the fact that anyone could copy your ideas made it difficult to secure investments for a large operation with thousands of workers that could leak your trade secrets. Most manufacturers at the time had a small pool of reliable workers.One great example of pre-patent mentality imo is Leeuwenhoek's discovery of the microscope. He had successfully made high magnification lenses but kept their fabrication a secret to keep the exclusivity of his discoveries. When scientists visited he had a fake workshop making lenses by grinding to throw them off course. That made him rich and famous, but he also held back the field until his death. Collective loss, personal benefit which is something we should avoid.
>>16862453>If the patent system didn't exists, there's still nothing stopping you from just doing the thing.Except of course the local mafia who will just make a bunch of false narratives about you and covertly burn down your shit if you do the thing they are already doing to make money which is a large part of why the patent system was put into place to begin with.>someone else can...Its not that someone does it, its that a mafioso conglomeration with preexisting connections to positions of power and cheap slave labor will definitely be able to out-compete some random average joe.
>>16862453Hardly matters anymore with “artificial intelligence “ and every signing their rights away to use apps and services and devices and whatnot.
>>16863160I was going to duality of man post, but you basically beat me to it.
>>16862453What really matters is the possibility of obtaining legal recognition for invention or first filing. It costs money to invent and inventors need legal protections.>>16863613patents ⊂ intellectual propertyLoaded terms are still a problem, but the greater issue are the creeping proposals to expand patentability to the abstract. This has not been justified yet, because it is so at odds with human nature.
>>16862453What would your alternative be and how would it motivate innovation?
>>16862490>>16862504do people think patents are given for free?also, some people do publish their innovations for no charge, even on fucking youtube. not everyone or everything needs patents.and some things are so fucking complex, having 0 patents wouldn't mean shit because almost no one would be able to replicate (think advanced lithography for integrated processors)
>>16862453Patents are a fine idea if they stuck to the original length of 14 years that America had at the start. What's fucked up is that now patents effectively just last for eternity
>>16864772>do people think patents are given for free?Nah. If you're an individual or small business they cost ~$1600 iirc. It's not cheap but well within the realm that the average guy could finance it if need be.Cost goes up the larger the enterprise filing is.>some people do publish their innovations for no charge, even on fucking youtubeSome people chop their balls off and change their legal name to Lilith. >some things are so fucking complex, having 0 patents wouldn't mean shit because almost no one would be able to replicateYeah, and if you, as someone who lacks the capital to market the idea, comes up with said idea, patents offer a way to receive credit and compensation for having conceived it.
>>16864774Patents last for 20 years now, which is while longer than the original term is certainly not an eternity. Perhaps you were thinking of copyright? Copyright is the one that has been super extended, to 95 years for works for hire.
>>16864775>$1600 iirclast time I did some research, it was about 8k IIRC.>Yeah, and if you, as someone who lacks the capital to market the idea, comes up with said idea, patents offer a way to receive credit and compensation for having conceived it.and AFAIK that was NOT EVER the point of patents. it was a way to protect people who ACTUALLY PRODUCED, BUILT things. in fact, I think that's how it still works in some countries. but murica, in its infinite corruption, made it so patent trolls could be a thing.
>>16864801This. The length for patents is fine - 20 years is a more than reasonable amount of time to find investors or buyers for a product, but not so long that if you don't, nobody else won't get the opportunity. But copyrights lasting for nearly a century is basically just for the entertainment sector to lock down IPs effectively indefinitely.
>>16864802>last time I did some research, it was about 8k IIRC.https://patentfile.org/howmuchdoesitcosttopatentanidea/You would only get close to that high if you started hiring lawyers to write the patents for you.>it was a way to protect people who ACTUALLY PRODUCED, BUILT things.Why would intellectual property only protect the individual who is building it?Patent trolling is not simply "I own the patent but don't build it." It's deliberately gatekeeping the invention and predatorily suing anyone trying to build something with it.Patent trolling is illegal in the US. Charging a royalty for using your idea is not.
>>16862453>You have to let the giant companies take your shit, goy.science?
>>16864815>Patent trolling is illegal in the US.And yet companies like Intellectual Ventures remain.
>>16864843Whether what they do constitutes "patent trolling" is debatable. They offer use of their held properties as a subscription service, which does not meet the more typical definition of hard-gatekeeping as a trap to file lawsuits.
>>16864772Patents aren't given, they are provisional and are only as good as every other patent owner's to ignore any possibly infringement on their own patents, its why patent troll still exist.
>>16862453The patent system was created by DoD for two primary purposes: grift the public for origional ideas (for stealing) and to control ideas for export controls.Fun fact you you don't patent a design ITAR doesn't apply to your design. ITAR ONLY controls patented technology.Suck my balls IBM/DARPA/ARPA-E
>>16862490>>16862504There was more innovation before the patent system than after it. We are experience a 40 year technology stagnation and most idiots are just to dumb to see it.
>>16866506>There was more innovation before the patent system than after it.By what metric are you even attempting to make this claim?
>>16864775>Nah. If you're an individual or small business they cost ~$1600 iirc.Patents are simple intellectual property rights. Once granted, they give you the right to defend them at enormous cost, but nothing more. If the intellectual property is good, it will be copied anyway, either by small companies that will restructure after a lawsuit, or by large companies where you will be dealing with a whole team of lawyers and usually have no idea what is going on behind the scenes in the negotiations.There are part of the neofeudalism of today and the usual scam big business turns anything into.
>>16864801Strictly speaking, it is 20 years from filing, so the 20 years also include the years of prosecution when it was a pending application.
>>16864802>it was a way to protect people who ACTUALLY PRODUCED, BUILT thingsThe pharma industry is based on small startups that develop new active compounds, get a patent on this, do initial testing, and then sell their rights to the big pharma corporations. The reason is that a startup can no longer afford the enormous cost of testing and getting marketing permissions frm FDAA etc. Without patent rights independent of own production, it would not be cost effective to start basic research into new compounds.Also in electronics and consumer goods you have similar situations. Fast moving consumer goods are utterly dominated by a handful of companies such as Unilever and Proctor & Gamble. Startups will not be able to reach that market anymore without the power of the established companies.
>>16868274>>16868274>Without patent rights independent of own production,The other round is that without patents nobody is able to block progress for decades. For consumer goods there are enough copyright protections anyway, and they lasting up to infinity while the basic tech. processes would be free.
>>16868763>block progress for decadesWhen did that ever happen?
