How come there are so many patents and yet as a consumer I see zero inventions I'd regard as patent-worthy?
praveen9920 · 4h ago
Patents are mostly theoretical.. they are done by researchers in companies. Companies consider them as assets and holds them which sometimes increases valuation of company itself. This does not mean they want to spend money into building that may not bring them business in near future.
Best example is car companies. I heard from one of the employee that they already have research and patents to build more efficient cars but the production of those are delayed for getting the value for the research done.
Joel_Mckay · 3h ago
"Patents are mostly theoretical"
Not really, one often needs to prove how the innovation works even if algorithmic (for example a gene sequence identifying itself was justifiable for many companies, and proved they weren't making stuff up.)
Patents sound vague on purpose, but I assure you real money and mountains of expensive studies were done prior to publishing any claims. =3
Joel_Mckay · 3h ago
Patents at one time were a way of sharing technology while still compensating the inventors, and licenses were fairly easy to source.
The majority of modern patents are the equivalent of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), and if you want rounded corners on a phone that will be $23m + 7% of retail sales.
This is why some people have gadgets from 10 years in the future, and others get toys from 17 years in the past. Ask yourself who has a spare $140k to file global patent these days... the list has shrunk. =3
Parents should be abolished as they are government restrictions on future inventions. Henry Ford said his gas engine was delayed twenty years by someone else's patent.
cvoss · 4h ago
The system is certainly broken and inefficient in many ways. But the system exists to promote and foster invention. Consider: I will not sink a large amount of resources into R&D if, as soon as I figure out something worthwhile, my competition can undercut me because they didn't have to spend all those resources upfront. Sure, the patent system delays my competition's followup invention. But neither of us would have chosen to invent anything in the first place if it's all risk and no reward.
ajb · 4h ago
Funny thing, it's been ages since I heard of a software startup touting it's filed patents. Used to be par for the course. But there still seem to be loads of software startups.
InsideOutSanta · 4h ago
>the system exists to promote and foster invention
It doesn't matter why it exists; what matters is what effect it has. "The purpose of a system is what it does."
>But neither of us would have chosen to invent anything in the first place if it's all risk and no reward.
This is not true. Plenty of small companies invent things every day and never patent anything. The idea that companies would just stop innovating without patents is not just implausible, it's plainly untrue.
Best example is car companies. I heard from one of the employee that they already have research and patents to build more efficient cars but the production of those are delayed for getting the value for the research done.
Not really, one often needs to prove how the innovation works even if algorithmic (for example a gene sequence identifying itself was justifiable for many companies, and proved they weren't making stuff up.)
Patents sound vague on purpose, but I assure you real money and mountains of expensive studies were done prior to publishing any claims. =3
The majority of modern patents are the equivalent of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), and if you want rounded corners on a phone that will be $23m + 7% of retail sales.
This is why some people have gadgets from 10 years in the future, and others get toys from 17 years in the past. Ask yourself who has a spare $140k to file global patent these days... the list has shrunk. =3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principl...
It doesn't matter why it exists; what matters is what effect it has. "The purpose of a system is what it does."
>But neither of us would have chosen to invent anything in the first place if it's all risk and no reward.
This is not true. Plenty of small companies invent things every day and never patent anything. The idea that companies would just stop innovating without patents is not just implausible, it's plainly untrue.