Patents and intellectual property rights of tangible items

[Punx Clever]

The discussion over here - http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=47427.0 - needed to spill into NMC so...

I am of the belief that the designer of, lets just use the term gadgets, has a certain right to profits from his design.  But I also feel that the patent system has another purpose aside from protecting the designer/engineer: The patent system puts knowledge into the public domain initially for use as a building block for further development by others, and ultimately to further the free market through competition.

That being said, a designer/engineer has two options once he's developed a new gadget.  He can patent the idea, and put it in the public realm; or he can maintain it as a trade secret.  By patenting something, he is guaranteed a monopoly (yes, a dirty, beautiful monopoly) on the design for a limited amount of time.  This allows him to profit from his idea and provides incentive for others to think up their own gadgets and make their own profits from their own monopoly.  After a certain period of time, however, this monopoly NEEDS (for the purpose of capitalism and a free market) to go away.  If it is something that can be maintained as a trade secret, like the recipie for coca-cola or KFC's blend of herbs and spices, then the designer is better served by keeping it out of the public domain.

With a patent, I feel that it is important for the designer to either sell his idea, or produce it.  If he does neither, he doesn't deserve to have the patent, as he is limiting the market from producing a novel idea.  If he does market the gadget, but doesn't make a profit, then the design was obviously not that novel in the first place (so sayeth the free market).  I also believe that a patent should cover something tangible... not simply "imputing commands into an electronic device using two or more fingers", eg. MultiTouch (patenting the device that registers more than one touch independantly, should be patented however).

Patents must expire too... otherwise there would be one company that had the right to produce say, a device that dampens motion by use of orifices, one-way valves, and a fluid, eg. shocks and forks, for as long as a government existed to enforce the patent.  This is wrong.  It stifles devlopment.

I figure thats enough for a good start on the discussion.  GO!

[xplodee]

Sounds like you covered the current IP system within the US. I personally am a fan of it and agree with your philosophy, as does the US legal system.

Bigger problem is actually defending your patent, if youre not strong (wealthy) enough to do so you can lose out in the market place big time.

Other problem is that it's near impossible to defend a patent if your Chinese suppliers are selling directly to your customers through eBay. Sadly, this is often the case. Call it bad business on account of the domestic inventors. Usually when this happens it's because a US company went to someone in china to get the design made cheap and didnt build a strong relationship with an MSA in place. The Chinese entrepreneur recognizes the opportunity because he can't be held liable for patent infringment across country lines.

[He Man]

in the realm of medicine it is a death sentence. Pharmacutical companies patent medicines.

in one sense they have the right to make money in doing so because they spend millions and sometimes billions in research and development.

however they charge insane prices because they are the only ones allowed to produce such a medicine....rightfully so because of all the money spent in R&D.

however between the time that they exclsively manufacture the magical wonderpill they developed and the time the patent exprires, thousands of people have gone bankrupted, insurance premiums sky rocket, and doctors are paid to push certain drugs when others are better.

its not always pretty print.

[RAT900]

I am all for peoples' right to access Patents!!!.....

especially the pumps with double ankle straps

[Drjones]

Limiting patents to physical objects would screw over scientists as more often than not their 'products' are theory and methods.  In formation evaluation there are typically patents for the measurement method as well as the hardware to go take the measurement.  The methods are "intangible" yet crucial for the operation of the hardware.  With the ammount of head scalping that goes on in this industry everyone knows how to make the hardware, because everyone has worked for everyone at least once in their careers.

IP rights in all forms keeps technology going forward.

[Greg]

I think it's BS that medical companies can patent a gene, it's not like they invented the damn thing.

[Punx Clever]

Limiting patents to physical objects would screw over scientists as more often than not their 'products' are theory and methods.  In formation evaluation there are typically patents for the measurement method as well as the hardware to go take the measurement.  The methods are "intangible" yet crucial for the operation of the hardware.  With the ammount of head scalping that goes on in this industry everyone knows how to make the hardware, because everyone has worked for everyone at least once in their careers.

These methods of measurement... it requires certain proprietary equipment to perform right? Patent the equipment.  If someone can figure out a way to make the same measurements, even with the same procedures with a simpler, cheaper, or in any way better device, they should be able to.

Concerning medicine... I believe that medicine should be patentable.  As for the extreme costs... well, they have every right to make a profit, and to tell them they do not have the right to make the profits that the market will bear is stealing from them.  Once the patent is over, then capitalism steps in and the "knockoffs" are introduced at a price based on production.   The patent drives innovations, and the expiration of the patent keeps the market working.

IP rights in all forms keeps technology going forward.

I disagree.  A notable example would be Software Patents.  To patent something as "a program that allows documents to be created and edited on a computer" shouldn't be allowed.  Patenting the code that makes it happen... sure.  It's not the same as copyright because the code is a "gadget", it uses a process to create something, as opposed to a book which you simply read.  But if Joe Programmer hears about a program that does that, then writes his own code (even reverse engineering the code to understand it), he should be allowed to do that as well.

Sounds like you covered the current IP system within the US.

Except one big point: I believe that a person must be required to bring a product to market in order to defend a patent.  Simply designing something then sitting on it, waiting for someone to infringe shouldn't be allowed... but it is. They don't have to actually produce it themselves, they can sell the patent to someone who will produce it (under whatever terms are deemed agreeable by both parties).  Just that there should be a requirement of production, marketing the patent for production, or a bona-fide attempt to do so before infringement can be claimed.

[Drjones]

Then no one spends money on scientists and as a result there is no innovation to be applied through mechanisms.  It is the same as saying the drug companies can't patent their formulations, but they can patent the pills.  Well genius if there is no incentive to create the formula then there will be no pill.

[Punx Clever]

Then no one spends money on scientists and as a result there is no innovation to be applied through mechanisms.  It is the same as saying the drug companies can't patent their formulations, but they can patent the pills.  Well genius if there is no incentive to create the formula then there will be no pill.

I think you misunderstood me... a pill that cures the common cold would be the same as say, an adjustable brake lever.  The molecule or formulation that does the work is the same as the mechanism that adjusts the lever.  If another scientist comes up with another formulation that does the job, he too can patent his formulation because there is nothing stopping him from producing the pill.

[ducanarchy]

Nobody has a "right" to profit from their idea.  Everyone has the right to use whatever knowledge is available to produce something he thinks people will like and possible purchase.

Patents are not needed to encourage R&D in any field in fact they distort what the consumer really wants by making companies rest on the ideas they already have patents for.  In pharmaceuticals the manufacturer has an incentive to make slight changes to existing patents (and then get a new patent) but not to develop a completely new product especially since the barrier to entry (FDA approval) is so high.  

Most progress in any field is achieved through the use of others ideas in a new way, or combining variations in a way not thought of before.  Patents and Copyright laws only discourage the use of existing ideas in new ways.  

On a moral level it is hard to justify obstructing an individuals use of what he has learned (by reverse engineering something or just outright copying it).  Once a company or individual "dispenses" their thoughts via production of a good, writing a blog, etc. they no longer "own" that idea because they have no realistic method for defending their "property".

From a productivity standpoint it is hard to believe that no one will strive for new ideas and better products because they don't get a government sponsored monopoly to prevent others from using their own knowledge.  Wikipedia is a good example of people spending their time and resources (without charging anything) to improve the content of an online encyclopedia.  "Open source" software is another.   

There is money to be made with high quality originals as well as "sub par" knock offs.  Some folks value the security of buying from a brand name and others prefer something that may have some risk involved at a discounted rate.

There should be no patents or copyrights whatsoever; only contracts by consensual parties or their proxy. An exception would have to be made for all of the erudite bloviating from me of course.