|
|
|
| Authored by: jjs on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 06:23 AM EDT |
No proof of patents holding things back, but in the 1970's &
1980's the software business was robust, and no patents
existed.
Another touchpoint (no proof) - in the early 1990's I lived
in Japan. In Akihabara you saw all sorts of electronic
goods for sale. Normally Company X would come out with an
improved product. Then Company Y would come out with a
version with what X had plus something else. Then X would
respond building on what Company Y had come out with. No
sign of patent litigation, instead a creative arms race that
benefited the consumer.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2012 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
Okay...useless little company...developed new type of
optical component for high spatial resolution
imaging...patented use of that type of optical component.
(a) They wouldn't have released the system design ever - and
never did release the fabrication methods because they
weren't patentable.
(b) The patent did help them raise money.
Longer term...it took 30+M and 10 years to get to a 10M
yearly business with lousy margins.
Without patents, the business plan would have been laughable
instead of just unsuccessful. Still, patents did encourage
some innovation that would not have happened otherwise.
Without patents, in businesses without natural monopolies or
other lock-in, investors and inventors will operate on the
assumption that any innovation will be limited to structural
profits within 5-10 years. As such, it makes more sense to
copy other people than do anything new.
The main problems with the patent system in general are:
(a) Too many potentially infringing patents
(b) Many ridiculous patents are granted. Frankly, for that
little business above, 90% of the granted patents would fall
to 10 minutes of prior art search.
The extra problem with software (and semiconductor and
electronics in general)
(a) There are whole libraries of patents required to do
anything new. Basically, the business is changing much more
quickly than the patent cycle. In that little imaging
business above, the company probably would have made back
the investor's money around the time its patents started to
expire.
Practically, the biggest change I'd like to see is removing
the presumption of validity from patents until a thorough
prior art review has been performed, at the expense of the
patent holder.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
