• grandma@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Patents shouldn’t be valid for more than 5 years imo. If you can’t make a large enough profit from your idea in 5 years maybe it wasn’t that good or original.

    • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Disagree. Look at Sawstop. It took years to even get to the patent filing phase. Then he tried to get companies to adopt it. They didn’t. So he spent years building a company and manufacturing base to support it. By the time he finally got things into stores and had a chance to pay back his investment the patent would have expired under your idea. There would have been zero incentive to do all that investment and the technology would have never become available.

      Your five year rule would harm anyone not already extremely wealthy. It would further incentivize corporations to maintain control over markets. It would also create a situation where companies would be trying to recoup all their investment costs in that 5 year period which would result in extremely high prices. Like the pharma companies on steroids charging a 5000% markup.

      • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        29 days ago

        How’s about a patent that expires 5 years after its first use by a billion+ dollar company? 5 years after it is used in more than 10,000 products? 5 years after its licensing has yielded over $1M in profit? 5 years after spending over $100k on advertising? 5 years after your first major court settlement?

        I think there are ways to protect individual innovators but also lessen patent abuse

        • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          29 days ago

          The more fine-tooth details you put in it the easier it is to exploit or get exceptions. It’s how you have a tax code where 10% tells you what to pay and 90% tells you how not to pay it.

          But the only thing I would change would be a software patents should be dramatically shorter than hardware patents given the life cycle of software.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The original idea with patents is to help protect small inventors from being run over by bigger corporations.
      But the result is more often the opposite, where small inventors that have a genuinely profitable novel product, is quickly forced to bankruptcy by frivolous patent suits, even when the new product is patented, and when bankrupt bought for peanuts by the bigger corp.

      The other main basis for patents is that the technology should not be lost, in case of the inventors death.
      But the way tech works today, that is no-longer relevant.

      5 year patent would absolutely be better than what we have IMO.

      • lunarul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Same for copyright law. The point was to give creators a few years to profit from their work before it goes into public domain.

      • tibi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Also the patent office needs to employ actual specialists and reject the bullshit patents, like rounded rectangles.