Arguing against patenting this, is arguing against the nature of patents at all.
As someone whose name is on a couple of patents, I wouldn't be opposed to this.
When was the last time you saw a truly novel patent idea that wasn't just some slightly different form factor for some connector that allows some company like Apple to charge $100 for a power cable that should cost $2?
Or, say, the dude who invented a brake for table saws that make it impossible to cut yourself with them. No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
The patent system is 100% captured by large institutional players and used only as a bludgeon against legitimate competition.
No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
That's not it. He originally tried to sell it to other mfgs. They basically told him, "it's too expensive to put in our low-end saws and if we put it in the high-end ones, we'd be admitting liability for any injuries from the low-end ones."
In other words, it's the lawyers again, just like it always is. So with no one willing to implement it, he struck out on his own with a company that makes only ones that implement it. It would have been in every brand by now if not for ambulance chasers.
I'm not really objecting to the patent system as it is built with law and courts, in fact that's my point. But I don't accept that removing patents altogether is a sane idea.
No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
Same issue, where the licensing? If the problem is duration, then the period they should be waiting should be longer, not shorter. And is this even true? Are company's really just prepared to make nothing for decades to just wait, or is there a different incentive structure driving them, that would suggest it's not worth getting a license, or developing a different patent?
When was the last time you saw a truly novel patent idea that wasn't just some slightly different form factor for some connector that allows some company like Apple to charge $100 for a power cable that should cost $2?
It literally happens all the time, and to be clear, incremental development is still critical to innovation. I accept that we have a large number of patent trolls, but I don't see the ide of removing patents at all. And to your point, you're talking about IP's. Now you're talking eliminating the concept of inventing things for a profit in it's entirety. At that point, there's no reason for innovation at all.
As someone whose name is on a couple of patents, I wouldn't be opposed to this.
When was the last time you saw a truly novel patent idea that wasn't just some slightly different form factor for some connector that allows some company like Apple to charge $100 for a power cable that should cost $2?
Or, say, the dude who invented a brake for table saws that make it impossible to cut yourself with them. No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
The patent system is 100% captured by large institutional players and used only as a bludgeon against legitimate competition.
That's not it. He originally tried to sell it to other mfgs. They basically told him, "it's too expensive to put in our low-end saws and if we put it in the high-end ones, we'd be admitting liability for any injuries from the low-end ones."
In other words, it's the lawyers again, just like it always is. So with no one willing to implement it, he struck out on his own with a company that makes only ones that implement it. It would have been in every brand by now if not for ambulance chasers.
On a similar note, the best charge cable I've ever used for my Samsung Galaxy s9+ is...the one that came with the phone.
But it's so SHORT. So I tried to order a new, longer one.
...It's not available anywhere other than Samsung's own website. Which is so poorly-designed and hard to use, unlike the phone itself.
Why do I still use an s9+? It still holds a charge. Why would I change my phone before it doesn't?
I'm not really objecting to the patent system as it is built with law and courts, in fact that's my point. But I don't accept that removing patents altogether is a sane idea.
Same issue, where the licensing? If the problem is duration, then the period they should be waiting should be longer, not shorter. And is this even true? Are company's really just prepared to make nothing for decades to just wait, or is there a different incentive structure driving them, that would suggest it's not worth getting a license, or developing a different patent?
It literally happens all the time, and to be clear, incremental development is still critical to innovation. I accept that we have a large number of patent trolls, but I don't see the ide of removing patents at all. And to your point, you're talking about IP's. Now you're talking eliminating the concept of inventing things for a profit in it's entirety. At that point, there's no reason for innovation at all.