@@MarshallTheArtist It is not a solution, to begin with. He basically gave an abstract and stupid (I'll explain why) solution just as a connection to his ad read. This is not a solution, because a "prize" would mean that the inventions should have a specific value BEFORE it is invented. Which is absolutely not the case with inventors. The incentive for inventions is to make something that will be profitable when and if it is broadly used. There are literally thousands of patents approved everyday and there is an endless patent cemetery filled with unused patents. The budget for going through all of these AND fairly evaluating them AND paying for them, simply cannot exist. It can be also easily abused by lobbyists by over-rewarding stupid inventions made by mega-corporations (they'll basically get free government funding) and under-rewarding good inventions by small inventors, scientists, competitors etc, so those big corporations would be able to use these useful inventions, basically for free. Criminal organizations would also benefit. Make something up --> threat/pay the committee that decides for its value --> get free $$$ . Patent trolls would be an insignificant issue next to the problems that would arise by this ad inspired "solution".
Here's my solution. Patents should only be effective when exporting the new product. Let the innovation company profit over the world while giving him competition in the home country. So your people can reach that new product without expensive prizes on it.
The better solution would be to shorten the Monopoly period variably based on many different factors (like type of product, level of uniqueness, amount of money invested)
I completely agree with this solution. I honestly thought that's where he was going with this. Or even better, I think there should be patents with different lengths of protection and lower lengths would take less time to get examined. That way companies that knew they wouldn't need 20 yrs for a particular invention could apply for an expedited examination for 5 or 10 yr patents.
I disagree with the 'amount of money invested' because startups don't have much resources and are just starting out. This would favor the companies with much more resources.
@@JBravoEcho09 I actually think I disagree, because if I recall correctly, that has happened before. The Monopoly period used to be considerably shorter, but because it /still/ grants a Monopoly, people with said Monopoly still end up benefiting a lot, eliminating competition and innovation for years, and thus often end up with enough money and influence to lobby in favor of extending their monopoly period, and the power of said monopolies is more than enough reason to do so and insist on it. I think he addressed that in the video, saying it's more of a patch than a complete solution.
I think that only really works in theory. In practice, I can see it turning into a “well my patent fits into X, Y or Z, so it should last much longer” situation, and it will come down to bureaucratic decision-making, which will only serve the bigger corporations that can make bigger claims, and we are back to where we started, maybe worse off. In practice, patents do not serve the inventor. First, most inventions are automatically owned by companies, because they were invented by a research team who is contractually obliged to give all creations to the company. You might say “Oh, well that company is the ‘inventor’, so it did benefit,” but companies aren’t, and should never be seen as people. Second, those who do freelance and invent on their own time have to pay exorbitant fees with patent attorneys and other bureaucratic costs, because one must sift through the 3.1 million patents that exist and ensure that your patent doesn’t infringe upon another patent. Unless the patent is a one in a million innovation that will make huge changes, selling the patent will rarely if ever give you a return on your investment. And if it is a huge innovation, the best way to capitalize on it will be to start your own company based on that innovation.
A better solution would be to have royalties paid to the original inventor for a period of years, but with no need for permission to be granted before using the patent. You simply say that you're utilising a particular patent, and some receipts go to the patent holder.
It could be made that companies can only extract a licensing fee in percentage from others using the patented invention instead of giving them a full monopoly and power to stop anyone from using it.
Per cent of what, though. Per cent of profit? Then companies can easily use your invention and claim there's no profit, because they are reinvesting everything (into beating you). Per cent of sale price? But how exactly when you patented one screw on brakes of an airplane?
@@miroslavhoudek7085 percentage of cost put into the production possibly? Eg. If I will spend 10 million dollars producing IPhones I must pay you 1 million dollars in patent rights.
@@leonaboson3070 Possibly. But then you would still be in need of deciding how much patent holder gets. Let's say that someone claims mp3 copyright. So how much much of the value of the iPhone the capability to play mp3 is. They say half, Apple thinks a hundredth... someone will need to decide it.
this already happens but at the sole discretion of the company. unless you arent a no name company in china you will pay a certain fee to make accessories for apple products like cases and chargers. this is one of the big reasons why apple doesnt want to make C type phones available it will stop a lot of recurring money from coming in. Its based on number of units produced, not even sold iirc dont quote me on that tho.
You had me until you said we had to pay for it with taxes. How about we say the patent does not expire for X amount of years or until they've made X amount of dollars. They still get the "money" but we don't have to pay for it. OR how about if they are the first to get the patent others who use their product have to pay them a % for again a limited amount of time or up to so much money. What i'm saying is their are A LOT of ways to incentivize and use money that don't require using taxes, that's just the lazy solution. Hell, even giving them an incentive of NO TAXES on that thing for a certain amount of time would be better than spending more taxes.
@@theajayyy Have a real business person like Mark Cuban, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and myself on an advisory board to determine the market value. We surely would know market value.
Yes, but when you file a takedown claim against Google and they say "oh yeah well, how bout make me" do you have the resources to go toe to toe with a massive corporation? At the end of the day that counts for more.
Here's a useful concept I learned in property class in law school: "Property is a bundle of sticks." In other words, the concept of "property" is a collection of rights, like the right of enjoyment, the right to exclude, etc. You may have all the rights over some property (called a "fee simple") or just a few. But you typically have a more limited set of rights. It is still property.
@jellyfish, no, that's the point, they wouldn't. It's the patent system that gives them legal basis to sue each other over who had the idea first now. Without patents, companies would still sue each other, but the question over who had an idea first would be off the table.
Here's an interesting thought... Instead of having a the governement issue a prized check to first investors, they could either lower taxes for the initial inventor or increase taxes for copy-cats. That way - The government doesn't hand out money (it doesn't have lol) - Rather than creating a prize system which is hard to predict depedent on market success, the market as a whole decides and reflects the success of the invention (who knew the original iPhone would be so successful) - In order to beat the initial person with the lower taxes, you're going to have to innovate more either with value creation or cost reduction. Thus driving higher amounts of innovation for the economy Tell me WHY this would work or WHY this wouldn't work below xoxo
Lower taxes for the initial inventor? What if its just some dude in his basement, hardly a reward. Why dont you sell your idea who ever wants to buy it and gets rights to it for a year? after that, the idea is free to all.
Just use a system where people have to pay royalties to the original creator for using the patented idea, and allow anyone to use any patent so long as they have paid the fee/percentage of profits.
Might lead to companies filing pointless little patents to secure their tax cuts. Do like the idea of tax cuts better than increasing taxes to pay prize money though.
The Prize system is interesting. In my case, I developed a new strain of Spirulina that thrives in cold climates. The benefit of a patent is to prevent any future competition for 20 years. However, with a prize system, I'd instantly have the capital needed to fully commercialize and that could be more valuable than the monopoly. I'd add though that the prize should have a stipulation that it must be used to take the product to market, so if I found a cure for death I couldn't expect a payout to withhold it.
You can have royalties if people use your patent, but you can't stop other people from improving or using your invention, also developing nations shouldn't be held to the same patent standards as rich people as they don't have the capital to defend their patents or to research since they spend more time/money surviving.
@@aoeu256 Oftentimes, at least when it comes to organisms and drugs, patents are easy to sidestep without compensation. For example, every time that a drug patent expires the chemical formula is slightly adjusted with a change that is enough for a new patent, but not enough to change the function. Generics are oftentimes just the old version. Note that this is not the same thing as an improvement. It's just an inert change. The same trick can be used on a new drug. Make an inert change to a life saving drug and you can undercut the company that developed the drug to begin with and you'd get a new patent. With organisms there are two main methods of development: Breeding and Genetic Modifications. Either way the patent holder gets to choose who can grow it. My strain of Spirulina is the result of breeding. If another company wanted to breed an improved strain they'd need my permission to grow it in which case I'd be due royalties, but if another company wanted to make a genetic modification to it that in no way improves it, but makes it different enough, they could reap the benefits of my development. Since I lack the resources to take my product to market I have decided not to patent it yet. I can do so at any time. If I did patent it I'd only have 20 years of protections and it would then be possible for another company to try and replicate it without compensation. On the other hand if someone inadvertently creates something similar and files for a patent I could challenge that patent under "prior work" rules. So the current rules give me every incentive to keep an invention off the market until I am ready to fully comercialize it. A Prize system would incentivize me to go to market sooner which would benefit the economy. Regarding your comment about other countries: U.S. patents only apply to US territories and have no effect in foreign countries developing or otherwise. There is no universal patent system so if I patented my product in the United States there would be nothing I could legally do about someone in a third world country from getting a sample of it and producing it without paying me royalties. Oftentimes a company concerned about this will pay to patent in every country they can or will exclude from the patent documents key information needed to make it work. The habit of excluding important details from a patent application can create problems though. For example, the patent on the water powered car described a process of vibrational resonance to decrease the electrical energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but didn't go further. He demonstrated that his invention works, but we don't know enough to recreate it. In all probability it didn't produce more energy than went in, but it might have worked by being far more efficient than a modern electrical car. In any case, since the inventor died without disclosing his secrets his invention died with him. A more well known example would be how the US government had to spend billions of dollars re-discovering it's own inventions because it refused to disclose to the patent office enough information to create it and lost the original documents with all copies being redacted. That happened several times. Having an incentive towards secrecy with regards to inventions is a big problem that I think a prize system could solve in some cases at least since you'd have to disclose all the details in that case, not just the details you want to protect. And while I agree with your sentiments about international circumstances a universal patent could be a good idea if done right.
Goes to Brilliant > Learns about Machine Learning & Artificial Intelligence > Builds Artificial Intelligence capable of understanding Brilliant courses > Makes It analyze all Brilliant Courses & Wikipedia Quality Articles > Makes computer model of voice > Makes said AI condense All courses & Wikipedia in short explanatory videos based on animation with text read by voice model > uploads hundreds of videos per day to youtube > Profit ? EDIT : Patent it, of course !
Step 1: invest hundrets of millions of dollars into building a maschine capable of processing, storing and filtering this information, hire hundrets of people that act as quality controll
Google was *just* able to build a semi-good voice model (Google Assistant), a cheap neural network browsing on wikipedia wouldn't be able to analyze and understand text with any degree of accuracy.
@Bumblesnuff buffallobath yes it's ridiculous to think that it would solve all problems of humanity but atleast it would be better than humans with their supreme intellect and higher accuracy. But it also ridiculous to compare AI with god, one is a physical and real entity while the other is just a imagination. Praying to AI is not same as praying to god, AI will surely do something while the god would not.
Hi PolyMatter, how about you talking about "pirates"? especially about copyright violations .. like game, movie, something like that, do you think "Denuvo" is right solution? how game / movie / etc (companies) Should deal with this problems?
The solution involves being anti-corporate. Minimise copyright so that violation doesn't have to be a norm for legitmate customers. And more importantly, that those companies aren't forced to prosecute for the sake of thier IP rights as is required of them. They could be ok with allowing fan projects because the law didn't force them to protect themselves. All DRM and anti-tamper software has been cracked before and continues to do so. Denuvo might have set them back for a couple of years, but it has fallen too. That "solution" is just an arms race that's bever ending. A true solution would involve actual trust between consumers and companies again. Unfortunately however, many companies have demonstrated time and time again that they do not care for being fair to consumers, and they don't care about laws either, only how they can abuse them to serve themselves and hinder everyone else. Either corporate leaderships have to change thier behaviours drastically, or they have to be thrown out of thier offices from within, or they have to be forced out in some other way. Failing that (and since I suspect corporate culture is as much to be concerned about as certain individuals.), those companies that will not stop abusing the people within them and without (thus are nearly guiltly of crimes against humanity.), have to be dismantled in thier entirely in the most literal sense, thier infrastructure destroyed utterly. Even though it will mean the unemployement of millions. For it is that bad. Even moderate me agrees. But whatever the action taken, it must be against corporate culture. If that can be done non-violently, great, but I'm unsure that's possible in light of those too corrupt to ever change back into decent human beings.
1. Pirate to try something out! 2. Like the product and have nothing against the company's practices? Buy the product so they can keep producing products like that which you bought! 3. Repeat!
While I usually love your content, this video is incredibly naive. Patents are supposed to protect startups from larger companies. Startups like mine would be shut down inside of a month if anyone could make our product do to economics of scale. Patents are critical to protecting innovators and the focus should be on reforming what things receive patents not on there elimination
@Andrew I see copyright and patents allowing big companies to strangle startups far more often. I see them abuse the system to make the problems they were meant to solve even worse then they were without. If your not being targeted in some fashion. Your either lucky, or they just haven't come to you, just wait. Your the one who is naive. We might need solutions to the problems that patents aim to solve. But the patent system fails to do so. It either has to be majorly overhauled, or scraped and started anew.
@@komutsky1879 The most hardcore capitalists you can find (anarcho-capitalists), argue intellectual property is an illegitimate concept that always stagnates innovation. Take that for what you will. You can see an IP lawyer & Ancap (Austrian school) economist talk about why that is here: ua-cam.com/video/0IfRmkCxyk8/v-deo.html
Your solution is not better at all. It starts with the question, what government should pay for it? You seem to forget that Patents are international. Good look having multiple governments decide what to buy and for how much and how much each government is paying for it.
@@TheMillionairesMentalist No it won't. There is no way multiple governments would pay for this, and surely none would let a non profit organisation or the UN decice what its taxpayers should pay money for. Not to mention the fact that the benefits from each idea or patent vary for each country and it's hard to even assume it's benefit before the company has even done anything. There is a problem, yes, but this "solution" would be thousand times worse
Governments pay for nothing. They rob money from workers and use the loot to pay for stuff that will get them re-elected. (Mr. Trump's government is not included in this criminal action.)
“Oohhh so interesting I wonder what he’s gonna say next...” “...how can we protect ourselves against patents? By signing up for a course on them on skill share...” “AHHHH POLY MATTER YOU GOT ME AGAIN”
Excellent video : Note about the Tragedy of Commons: Elinor Olstrum (economist specialized in common goods) shows that the example you quoted with the pasture (explained by Hadrin) is a misconception, implicating that 1. a system of shared resource like that will always fails (fatalism) and 2. people gonna behave badly so a system (like a state) should take control of the situation. This metaphor is then a too simplified version of how competition works in limited resource system, underestimating the capacity of people to find solutions and to change the rule of the problem. Sure there is place where this sitation can apply at 100%, but it doesn't really succeed to describe how it could be solved. I recommend you to check her books, hard but good reading, you will see models of solutions for these circumstances, by going over this simplified (but useful) example.
This is exactly what we should be doing. Bounty/prize systems are so much better than monopoly-based alternatives. There would, of course, be issues in selection and funding, but the current system is really untenable. It's one of the major reasons why, after completing by BSci in Computer Science, I realized I couldn't in good conscience work in the tech industry. Software patents, DRM, and surveillance were all things I hard-line refused to be associated with even indirectly at several degrees of separation, but they were all so near-omnipresent that I had to turn my back on the field as a whole, even though it was the only thing I was ever really good at. ...when I was a kid, I wanted to invent things. But as I learned about the patent system, that dream faded quickly. I want to bring new things into the world, not participate in the carving-up of the space of possible technologies into exclusive silos. Most of the purpose of patents these days is either for MAD as mentioned in the video or as minefields sown to actively _prevent_ competitors from exploring a technological direction (whether or not you plan to go there yourselves). Even worse, countries like the USA allow even further loopholes on top of the abusiveness of the traditional patent system (There, pharmaceutical patents can be renewed indefinitely by changing a small detail of the drug or its manufacturing process and filing new safety paperwork. Even INSULIN is still under patent there, apparently!). EDIT: Alternately (probably with fewer of the negative side effects others brought up in the comments), the modern patent system could be modified in such a way to both absolutely require specificity (like it originally did in the USA, with full blueprints included in the patent application and often a requirement to donate a working prototype or miniature model to a public museum) and to require the patent holder to licence at a certain maximum rate to anybody who asked (making it impossible to hold a patent purely to prevent a technology disruptive to to your business from being invented/commercialized by your competitors)
@@adamkox18 I'm... still unemployed. I only just started seriously looking for things I could do, then the pandemic hit, and since I'm already living with my parents for free in my hometown, it didn't make sense to blindly move to the city, probably become injured (maybe permanently) by the pandemic, and go into ever-increasing amounts of debt a month for the 'privilege' of working a job that didn't cover rent and food. My current strategy, if you can call it that, is to look for a clerical job with the local public library or government. If I can continue living at home, it doesn't have to pay well or have many hours, because the value of remaining at home (even just monetarily, taking advantage of the amazing logistics and economies of scale my family is known for, buying everything on sale and in bulk and cooking/repairing/building as much as possible ourselves) is more than any amount of money I could reasonably make in a so-called 'entry-level' job.
I give this video 4 out of 5 stars. The minus one star is because I don't think the "prize" solution is the right answer to the problem. You had EVERYTHING right up to that point.
I think your dichotomy left out a very important perspective: Invention is neither a right nor a trade - but an ADVERTISEMENT. Creativity is work. It's very unpredictable and difficult work dependent upon numerous unquantifiable factors, but worn nonetheless. Imagine someone paints for a living. They could charge people exorbitant prices for pictures of their paintings, but how would anyone find out about their talent if they did so? How would they get commissions for future paintings? How about songwriters? Do people pay them to hear their songs, or do they pay them to write more songs? Same goes for innovators of more practical things. Dozens of things are invented daily (the credit for which often goes to employers rather than the individuals who were more directly responsible for the ideas) that produce products that improve upon previous ones. And the engineers who designed them aren't usually paid in perpetuity for the use of their inventions - they're paid to invent MORE. Innovation is not a product; it is a service. You cannot steal something by duplicating it. You can, however, reduce competition by making it harder for other people to invent similar things. Tl;dr: Intellectual property is a BS concept that has slowed innovation in the world for generations, not elevated it.
I think one of the most dangerous things that ever happened was the spread of the idea of 'intellectual property'. No, I'm not talking about copyright or patent laws as such - the original framing of copyright laws was in fact based on the notion you COULDN'T really own an idea or concept or something as nebulous as a story. And yet, somehow, somewhere, we've had decades upon decades of propaganda trying to convince us that you can 'own' a story, or an idea, or a process, or something equally abstract - something which doesn't really exist in tangible form in it's own right, but only in the patterns laid down in physical medium. When you 'own' a story, you don't own, say the book it's printed on, no you own the pattern of that story - the specific combination of words - the PATTERN. And that pattern is the same whether it's written on paper, digitally, or even recited orally from memory. But somewhere along the line people have been pushing the notion that you can 'own' such a pattern in the same way you can own a car. But self evidently you cannot. It follows from the rules themselves; If I own a car, the laws around it relate to nobody forcibly taking that car from me, and that I get to dictate what happens to that specific car. If I 'own' a story, the laws around it related to FORCING OTHERS to not do anything at all with the pattern of that story without getting my explicit permission. In other words, one set of laws is about keeping others from taking something from me, the other is mostly about preventing others from doing things with anything at all that resembles my 'pattern'. Another problem should be visible here - the pattern is abstract, and remains relevant whether there is just one copy of that pattern or 100 billion. Whether it costs me anything or not, I can prevent anyone from copying my pattern, even though I have no means other than the law to do so that makes any kind of sense... The laws about me owning a car only relate to that specific car. Not to every car in existence, or even just every car of the same model, no, just that one car. It gets worse when you start being vague about what exactly your 'pattern' consists of. Because if your 'pattern' is vague enough, you not only get to dictate that nobody can create an exact copy of your pattern, you can prevent people making anything even remotely like your pattern. And now you've functionally crippled people's creativity or ingenuity... Every one of these 'patterns' that gets legally protected, shrinks the entire space of possible creative works, meaning everyone else is more and more hemmed in and restricted. How can you justify the idea that you 'own' something that's so detrimental to others when seen from the global perspective? You don't own something that you gain, but nobody really loses... Quite the opposite - you by definition of the laws involved don't really gain anything as such, you've just ensured that everyone else loses something. Intellectual Property is a toxic concept. Especially the 'property' part. You shouldn't ever be framing such things as if they can be related to property ownership, because it has serious and very bad consequences for everyone to do so...
As somebody in the IP field, I need to point out that this video had some factual errors. Primarily, you showed an example of three patents early on, labeling them all as patents. However those were not all patents. The example of the patent for filing patents was a patent publication, which is not a patent grant. All patent applications publish but not all applications become grants. Showing a publication and saying it’s a patent is just plain wrong and misleading. I know you are young and these videos are amazing for somebody your age but research is important when discussing these topics.
Yes, thank you! I work in IP too and was looking for a comment like yours. This video was either very simplified or just plain not well researched. As if statutory requirements for patent eligibility don't exist and anything can be patented.
My question is what's the complete cost of filing for a patent. Is it really in 4 figures, if so that's screwed up. Even amongst startups only the well funded ones can afford it then.
God, I really, REALLY hate the term IP. It's a toxic distortion of what these laws were originally created for, and has some seriously strong negative effects on people's perceptions of such laws. Conflating abstract concepts and patents with physical property is perhaps one of the most insidious forms of propaganda of the 20th century. Truly, truly awful.
I would suggest a simpler solution. Why not allow a limited monopoly up until a set profit margin after which the idea becomes public domain? (If it didn’t hit the threshold after so many years it would similarly become public domain) You could incentive more precise language, be more individualistic taking into account research and production cost and the admin cost could all be incorporated into the patent fee. Ideas with greater potential would cost more to patent but this would also allow for subsidies to be offered start ups and such. Profit trolls would also matter less as you could include settlements in this profit margin.
Not so sure for patents in general, but there's more than enough evidence that all the lawsuits and such associated with software patents vastly exceed the financial benefit anyone holding such patents will ever get out of it...
You keep saying that pharma companies may actually need patents. But they also abuse the system by "repatenting", which is a loophole to make tiny unnecessary change to their drug formula and get an extra 20 years.
"More likely everyone would act in their own best interests." Ok, but it's very likely at least a significant number of farmers would form a cooperative and either vote on land use policy or collaborate informally or elect one of them with the possibility of immediate recall to manage it for them. Your own best interests are to cooperate with this centralized authority because the alternative is that it will disenfranchise you or ban you from using the land through superior numbers.
I think the best solution would be so you when you file a patent, instead of making it so other companies can't use your idea, you make it so they have to pay you out a certain amount. For example, if a company uses another companies idea, they must pay out a certain percentage for a certain amount of time.
The main problem of everyone sueing everyone else in bad faith still remains. The court costs are the main problem. This would only mitigate the problem so people couldn't sue for all the "offender's" money and instead only get some of it. Still better than what we have now though.
Another problem about this is that you have to litigate over what percentage and percentage of what should be paid. A flat fee per unit sold/used would be better
I have several problems with this video. First, patents ARE a right and not a trade as you said we should have us think of them. You only look at corporations with patents when everyone can have one. One of the best examples of this was the story described in the film Flash of Genius where Robert Kearns won his hard fought legal battle against the Ford Motor Company due to his patent. Further, software patents are fairly difficult to get. One of the things you cannot get a patent from is an “abstract idea” and that includes most software. Lawyers who write software patents come up with ways to get around this (but that might at a cost of some patent protection), but you also have to realize that the drafting process takes on average 2 years for the patent to be issued (and protection is only allotted from the date of filing, so patent holders only have a real effective date of protection of 18 years) and patents are invalidated all the time for being wrongfully issued anyway. Finally, even if a patent holder wins a lawsuit, they are usually only awarded a reasonable royalty for the portion of the product that uses the patent (which is far less in today’s time in very complex devices such as smartphones). So things are not nearly as bad as you make seem. Edit: Also wanted to say that doing away with patents all together may stop giant corporations from profiting at such a large degree, but again it prevents small guys from obtaining a right they are due (as with Kearns) and that in turns discourages innovation from that perspective. I'd rather live in a world where EVERYONE one can benefit than where no one can benefit just so big corporations can't earn more money.
Hmm... You misheard the sentence. Hes saying we should look at it differently: as a trade. Not suggesting they are not a right. As for how hard it is, this is a common issue that is wide spread. Countless stories about small business getting brought to court over, IE: Code in a game that links a game with it's servers is somehow a trolls IP, can't get more abstract... The existence of this issue in any capacity disproves the idea you can't patent an "abstract idea". Lastly, these issues are not being fixed, they are being amplified. Getting rid of patents would not be my solution but something needs to be done. If you only see a flawed system getting worse and not being fixed, don't be shocked when people start wanting to remove it entirely. China, imho, does not have the best system, but at some point our system will get so defiled that it will look like the best course of action... So ignoring issues or minimizing them is not a viable option, just look at the issues and think about how to fix them...
@@jsveterans6949 First, I did not mishear him. The reason why I stress the fact that they are rights and not "trades" is because giving up this right is such a radical idea that should ultimately be abandoned. Is the current system flawed? Sure, but the reason why patents date back to the 1800s is because society at large recognizes their value. They serve a purpose in protecting the intellectual property of a creator. Before statute protected this right, the stealing of work was so widespread that creators were afraid of publication for fear of intellectual theft. Second, I did not make up my point about abstract ideas. That comes straight from the US Supreme Court if you do not believe me. As I mentioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office often grant patents that they shouldn't but there is already a quick and easy process in place for invalidating those patents. It is a somewhat expensive process, but it beats having to litigate it in court at the risk of millions of dollars on the line. Finally, I think you are somewhat misinformed. China also has a patent system as they are members of the World Trade Organization which states that each member must conform to a treaty regarding intellectual property (i.e. their laws must conform to the treaty). While in practice, intellectual property infringement is widespread in China, at least on the books they adhere to the principles of patents, copyrights, and trademarks. If you do not agree with the current system, then look at the argument laid forth by Uniquenameosaurus on his second video regarding and advocating Copyright Piracy. I know it's an hour long video, but it's definitely worth the watch if you are interested in this sort of thing. I don't even fully agree with everything he says either, but at the very least he acknowledges the value of the current system and that abandoning it is foolish.
The thing is small companies and independent inventors would be hurt in a world without patents. Larger companies could steal their ideas even more than they already do without any compensation.
One small issue here, patents are issued by country. Thus there is no way to infringe a patent except if you do so in a country that HAS a patent on such things. And patents have to be applied for individually by country, so just because you have a patent on something in the US, someone that operates entirely within say, the UK doesn't have to give the slightest shit about your patent. So a country which doesn't issue patents at all can let people do anything, as long as they don't then try and sell their stuff in a country in which something they've done is patented...
What's horrible is that the $5k-$10k fees actively block real inventors. Like no one can realistically make a company unless they're like upper 5-10% of wealth if they have to plop down that much money on something that might not even be profitable at all.
This would effectively kill a large portion of start ups that survive on intellectual property. This is especially true in more developed industries, like automotive and medical, where most start-ups’ strategy is to be acquired. Why would a big company acquire a smaller company when they could just copy their idea, and outsell the start-up on name recognition alone.
This 'solution' is horrific. Patents exist not only for large corporations but (maybe most importantly) the small players in the industry. Say I invent some extremely useful technological feature, one large corporations would kill for to use. Now say instead of receiving a patent, I receive a prize of $15 million. That prize is peanuts for a company say Apple, Google and Microsoft. There is nothing to stop those companies to invest much more than your prize to replicate the invention and profit from it, leaving you no chance to compete and have any leverage above those large ones.
Replace the patent with a negotiable right of first divulgation instead. This eliminates statute duration and monopoly, introduces market pricing for ideas/innovations, and a model of legal protection for trade secrets.
Taxes are rarely, if ever, the solution.. terrible idea.. Perhaps there should be a tier or category system for patents.. certain types of patents for certain industries are very short while others are much longer.. depending on the value of the product or difficulty in creating it..
There should be a forum and each major company should appoint a representative headed by someone who no longer has a vested interest. An industry leader. Perhaps someone already in philanthropy. I nominate Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They have proven themselves worthy with their commitment to the giving pledge. I would also nominate Marc Cuban if he was willing to step down from all his other interest. He's a well-spoken thought leader with the visibility, transparency and practical insights to make this a reality.
I think the bigger issue with prize incentives for inventions is that the emphasis would then be for companies to continually create "new" things and not necessarily things that consumers want.
Everyone talking about Money and Patents (and rightly you should), but I'm over here losing my mind on that he used the TWICE logo in a graphic to represent the word "twice." I'm actually dying and I love it! :>
Some Chinese companies do copy American companies like apple. However it is unfair to say apple or a company like apple would be necessarily profitable. Apple has a lot of gravity in the market, and they control how a Chinese competitor can compete outside of China. But if you scale it down to companies without influence, the model breaks down. You might want to stop monopolies. But the patent system is not fundamentally flawed this way.
@@mistakenmeme They aren't. In fact, they passed Apple on Friday with 851B, and Apple with 848B. Microsoft is now on top, because of their cloud, AI, and service advancements. They are no longer a Windows company, but a cloud service company.
If someone has an idea for a physical object, it could be the most ingenious solution to a particular problem ever. But that doesn't mean it will sell. It could cost as much or a substantial portion of what it would take to start producing an item as it would to patent something. If a person has an idea a manufacturer might be interested in producing, they run the risk of having their idea stolen if they go around to different manufacturers to produce the item. My solution to both of these problems as well as a few others is for the government to create a repository of encrypted files timestamped and attributable to the person who originated the file. Then, a person can produce or submit items to manufacturers and still hold claim to it. All a person would need for proof would be the encryption key or more securely, the check sum for the file.
How about starting by splitting the difference? Cut patent length in half and offer a small financial kickback to start, then gradually transition to lower time and more cash-back. Maybe a "flex benefit" where, by the end of the transition, a patent filing will be offered their payout and may "buy" Monopoly duration up to some maximum length from that value. To illustrate, let's say it costs $5k to file for a patent. The filing is evaluated and it's determined you'd get $10k for it. You can take the $10k and pocket it, or you could spend, say, 10% for 3 months of Monopoly duration (so you get $9k and patent protection for 3 months), plus one more month for each additional 10% you spend (in this example, $1k for 3 months, up to a max of 12 months if you turn down the entire $10k and spend an additional $2k).
But in the case of just writing creators a cheque up front in lieu of a patent, how do you determine the value of an invention? I'd argue that the value of an invention often isn't immediately apparent. And who decides?
Coca Cola was sold for $1 in 1899, because the owner at that time didn't see the potential of it. To connect this with the solution you offered, many patents would be over/underpriced, because the true potential is often shown when it actually hit the market. It's about what you do with patents, and the price isn't permanent. Moreover, the one that makes a patent may not be the best in the market; you can see this with most of China products- so patents are actually very important for companies, as they allowed them to improve and succed at marketing etc. And where would the money come from? What if I decided to use patent 10 years after it was patented, and in the next 10 years change bussiness from $2000 to $2.000.000 a month? How much would I pay, and when? If it's gonna be "something now, something later- depends how much you make" it's pretty similar to the situation we have today. Furthermore, I see many othe problems, which will just remove one problem and make the other problems even bigger- for example, companies that own markets will be even more powerful, as they pay the most for what is limited and offered (selling a grassy hill to a higest buyer with the cows). It's just another side of a same coin, nothing solved.
@@malacki6554 Video above. If people sue each other endlessly because one ''copied'' someone's else patent, well there's always less people that will want to innovate and work towards progression.
The problem is that sometimes there wasn’t much labor. Of course it costs a lot of time and money to develope a drug, but the simple concepts patented by many tech companies is evidentally counterintuitive.
@@malacki6554 That's hopelessly naive, all you need to do is see the completely frivoulous patents that exist. Should basic physics be patentable? Since most of us think no, the current patent system that allows just that is broken. It is impossible, litterally physically impossible not to violate someone's patent, except to create or do, nothing. But I bet someone tried patenting doing nothing too. There's no way not to violate a patent, every breath you take likely violates several patents, in all seriousness.
Patents need to be redefined as a boost for achieving something first rather than a cockblock for innovation. Like a one year patent to get a headstart in market share.
And that's the heart if the issue isn't it? Can you consider intellectual property as you would consider material or land property? it's not physical, you do not "have it", it's aslo not like money, where an international bank system guarantee you ownership of virtual value. An idea is created by the mind from thin air, and as such it is not linked to any form of capital, labor or prestige. Anyone has the capacity of producing the same idea, so why the fact that someone produced it first should give them any advantage over others that also have the same idea? Ideas are intangible, there is no value system of iedeas, so how can ideas be properties? That's why patents are void after some years.
You've proposed one idea, but there are lots of variants and alternatives. The first thing is that you could blanketly get rid of software patents without having any noticeable effect on innovation. My argument is that now that we've got processors, higher level languages, compilers, etc everything remaining is obvious to those skilled in the art. Show somebody what code is trying to do, and somebody else will be able to reimplement it independently. So there is no "invention" involved. It is merely going through the motions to say that something is now important. No one looks at patent literature to understand how to implement software, or even to try to work around existing patents. To actually identify novelty, patent examination is irretrievably flawed. Instead, one idea is that for a patent to be granted, someone should be putting up prize money for a problem to be solved, such as with the X prizes or the original Longitude rewards. In this case, there might be no further need for compensation to spur innovation. But if you want to involve granting government monopolies, you could cap the number of patents issued each year, and only issue patents to those inventors with the highest bids for the patent monopoly. Another idea is to require annual fees on an increasing scale to keep a patent in force. If the cost is low initially, there would be an incentive to disclose many ideas, to protect from other people filling first. But as the fees increase, there would be incentive to not renew and thus make more ideas in the public domain sooner.
I would recommend you these four videos don't know if you would consider •Are Tv's dying? •Are Table Top and tcg games are dying? •Disney+ Vs Netflix •Are mobile games taking over
I usually love your videos but this one was just terrible. Your "solution" is beyond ridiculous. I wouldn't even expect such a dumb response from a 10yo. For starters, How exactly do you determine the amount of "prize money" a patent deserves? And who does the estimation? Govt bureaucrats? lol How are you going to convince the inventor and the taxpayer on how you came up with that number?
I'd say just pick an amount that's large enough to set a person up for life several times over. Say, $500 million. That's about 10,000 times GDP Per Capita for a country like the USA or Australia. Also, not too shabby an amount of income for a corporation either.
@@Roxor128 But each patent has a different value doesn't it? A patent for a barely useful chemical is not as valuable as a patent for a life saving drug developed with billions of dollars investment in R&D. Are going to give the same $500 million for both patents?
It seems like reverse chain logic in this video. Namely, patent trolls are a nuisance, how do we stop them? Well clearly we need to reform the entire system, not just impose restrictions and requirements on litigious patent buyers
As valid as your questions are, and as half-baked as the solution proposed in this video is, you do not need to say things like "I wouldn't even expect such a dumb response from a 10yo." Maybe you should try come up with solutions for a change.
The transition is so smooth you should patent it
I came here to say this
Lol same.
@Gary Oak His videos are awesome and if wants to put an ad there I am with it. Of course I would prefer if there were no ads.
I think you can... I mean... Amazon patented the 1 click instant purchase method.
Yet to see a UA-camr so smooth .
This comment is patented !
ok Tommorow
I will come back in 18 years and edit this comment exactly like yours, Proactive Thinker.
This comment is patented!
Your mom is also patented... By me!!
I was hoping for a better fix for this problem.
I like his research and scope and information. I often find his analysis and solutions to be off.
What's wrong with it?
@@MarshallTheArtist It is not a solution, to begin with. He basically gave an abstract and stupid (I'll explain why) solution just as a connection to his ad read.
This is not a solution, because a "prize" would mean that the inventions should have a specific value BEFORE it is invented. Which is absolutely not the case with inventors. The incentive for inventions is to make something that will be profitable when and if it is broadly used. There are literally thousands of patents approved everyday and there is an endless patent cemetery filled with unused patents. The budget for going through all of these AND fairly evaluating them AND paying for them, simply cannot exist.
It can be also easily abused by lobbyists by over-rewarding stupid inventions made by mega-corporations (they'll basically get free government funding) and under-rewarding good inventions by small inventors, scientists, competitors etc, so those big corporations would be able to use these useful inventions, basically for free. Criminal organizations would also benefit. Make something up --> threat/pay the committee that decides for its value --> get free $$$ . Patent trolls would be an insignificant issue next to the problems that would arise by this ad inspired "solution".
Here's my solution. Patents should only be effective when exporting the new product. Let the innovation company profit over the world while giving him competition in the home country. So your people can reach that new product without expensive prizes on it.
@@gorkemvids4839 wow thats dumb
5:03 polymatter secretly a twice fan??
@@loganb2936 it's a K-pop group ;)
@@loganb2936 but searching the word literally does bring them up
A kpop group
@@user-ih4jn2lk4j knew it.
Palpatine turns to Anakin:
"Have you ever heard the tragedy of the commons?"
xd
I thought not. It's not a story the megacorps would tell you.
I spy a sneaky Twice symbol
I kept scrolling just to look for this comment !
@@aastikdubey6422 lol...me too!
What's that?
@@IndellableHatesHandles kpop group
5:06
The better solution would be to shorten the Monopoly period variably based on many different factors (like type of product, level of uniqueness, amount of money invested)
I completely agree with this solution. I honestly thought that's where he was going with this.
Or even better, I think there should be patents with different lengths of protection and lower lengths would take less time to get examined. That way companies that knew they wouldn't need 20 yrs for a particular invention could apply for an expedited examination for 5 or 10 yr patents.
I disagree with the 'amount of money invested' because startups don't have much resources and are just starting out. This would favor the companies with much more resources.
@@JBravoEcho09 I actually think I disagree, because if I recall correctly, that has happened before. The Monopoly period used to be considerably shorter, but because it /still/ grants a Monopoly, people with said Monopoly still end up benefiting a lot, eliminating competition and innovation for years, and thus often end up with enough money and influence to lobby in favor of extending their monopoly period, and the power of said monopolies is more than enough reason to do so and insist on it.
I think he addressed that in the video, saying it's more of a patch than a complete solution.
I think that only really works in theory. In practice, I can see it turning into a “well my patent fits into X, Y or Z, so it should last much longer” situation, and it will come down to bureaucratic decision-making, which will only serve the bigger corporations that can make bigger claims, and we are back to where we started, maybe worse off.
In practice, patents do not serve the inventor. First, most inventions are automatically owned by companies, because they were invented by a research team who is contractually obliged to give all creations to the company. You might say “Oh, well that company is the ‘inventor’, so it did benefit,” but companies aren’t, and should never be seen as people. Second, those who do freelance and invent on their own time have to pay exorbitant fees with patent attorneys and other bureaucratic costs, because one must sift through the 3.1 million patents that exist and ensure that your patent doesn’t infringe upon another patent. Unless the patent is a one in a million innovation that will make huge changes, selling the patent will rarely if ever give you a return on your investment. And if it is a huge innovation, the best way to capitalize on it will be to start your own company based on that innovation.
A better solution would be to have royalties paid to the original inventor for a period of years, but with no need for permission to be granted before using the patent. You simply say that you're utilising a particular patent, and some receipts go to the patent holder.
It could be made that companies can only extract a licensing fee in percentage from others using the patented invention instead of giving them a full monopoly and power to stop anyone from using it.
Per cent of what, though. Per cent of profit? Then companies can easily use your invention and claim there's no profit, because they are reinvesting everything (into beating you). Per cent of sale price? But how exactly when you patented one screw on brakes of an airplane?
@@miroslavhoudek7085 percentage of cost put into the production possibly? Eg. If I will spend 10 million dollars producing IPhones I must pay you 1 million dollars in patent rights.
@@leonaboson3070 Possibly. But then you would still be in need of deciding how much patent holder gets. Let's say that someone claims mp3 copyright. So how much much of the value of the iPhone the capability to play mp3 is. They say half, Apple thinks a hundredth... someone will need to decide it.
this already happens but at the sole discretion of the company. unless you arent a no name company in china you will pay a certain fee to make accessories for apple products like cases and chargers. this is one of the big reasons why apple doesnt want to make C type phones available it will stop a lot of recurring money from coming in. Its based on number of units produced, not even sold iirc dont quote me on that tho.
Nice using of the twice-logo! Most people wouldn't get it, due not hearing korean pop music. Love these small references/hints!
I didn't get it but I learned something today!
You had me until you said we had to pay for it with taxes. How about we say the patent does not expire for X amount of years or until they've made X amount of dollars. They still get the "money" but we don't have to pay for it. OR how about if they are the first to get the patent others who use their product have to pay them a % for again a limited amount of time or up to so much money. What i'm saying is their are A LOT of ways to incentivize and use money that don't require using taxes, that's just the lazy solution. Hell, even giving them an incentive of NO TAXES on that thing for a certain amount of time would be better than spending more taxes.
Dan Z that’s a brilliant solution, it’s a grant to make a return on investment. Only problem is the game of lying about how much your investment was
is there a way to audit investments?
but what is appropriate compensation?
@@thomhughes4617 It's still way better than the broken system we have now. At least this simplifies things.
@@theajayyy Have a real business person like Mark Cuban, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and myself on an advisory board to determine the market value. We surely would know market value.
I'm going to patent the idea of a youtube video about patents.
I'm going to patent the concept of a comment about patenting the idea of a youtube video about patents on a youtube video about patents.
Not if I patent the patenting process in general. @@TheEclecticDyslexic
Yes, but when you file a takedown claim against Google and they say "oh yeah well, how bout make me" do you have the resources to go toe to toe with a massive corporation? At the end of the day that counts for more.
@@SacredDaturaa It wouldn't matter because I've already patented patents.
@@TheEclecticDyslexic Damn, I guess so... Unless, of course, I patented enforcement of patents....
Here's a useful concept I learned in property class in law school: "Property is a bundle of sticks." In other words, the concept of "property" is a collection of rights, like the right of enjoyment, the right to exclude, etc. You may have all the rights over some property (called a "fee simple") or just a few. But you typically have a more limited set of rights. It is still property.
I think there are some serious problems with this approach, everyone will just be suing each other over who had the idea first.
This is a problem that's already possible with the current system.
Lol. They already do that. What are you talking about?
@jellyfish, no, that's the point, they wouldn't. It's the patent system that gives them legal basis to sue each other over who had the idea first now. Without patents, companies would still sue each other, but the question over who had an idea first would be off the table.
Here's an interesting thought...
Instead of having a the governement issue a prized check to first investors, they could either lower taxes for the initial inventor or increase taxes for copy-cats. That way
- The government doesn't hand out money (it doesn't have lol)
- Rather than creating a prize system which is hard to predict depedent on market success, the market as a whole decides and reflects the success of the invention (who knew the original iPhone would be so successful)
- In order to beat the initial person with the lower taxes, you're going to have to innovate more either with value creation or cost reduction. Thus driving higher amounts of innovation for the economy
Tell me WHY this would work or WHY this wouldn't work below xoxo
Lower taxes for the initial inventor? What if its just some dude in his basement, hardly a reward.
Why dont you sell your idea who ever wants to buy it and gets rights to it for a year? after that, the idea is free to all.
Just use a system where people have to pay royalties to the original creator for using the patented idea, and allow anyone to use any patent so long as they have paid the fee/percentage of profits.
It doesn't seem like you understand the patent system.
Might lead to companies filing pointless little patents to secure their tax cuts. Do like the idea of tax cuts better than increasing taxes to pay prize money though.
The Prize system is interesting. In my case, I developed a new strain of Spirulina that thrives in cold climates. The benefit of a patent is to prevent any future competition for 20 years. However, with a prize system, I'd instantly have the capital needed to fully commercialize and that could be more valuable than the monopoly. I'd add though that the prize should have a stipulation that it must be used to take the product to market, so if I found a cure for death I couldn't expect a payout to withhold it.
Did you not watch the video?
Rewatch the video particularly up until the 1:30 mark
You can have royalties if people use your patent, but you can't stop other people from improving or using your invention, also developing nations shouldn't be held to the same patent standards as rich people as they don't have the capital to defend their patents or to research since they spend more time/money surviving.
@@aoeu256 Oftentimes, at least when it comes to organisms and drugs, patents are easy to sidestep without compensation. For example, every time that a drug patent expires the chemical formula is slightly adjusted with a change that is enough for a new patent, but not enough to change the function. Generics are oftentimes just the old version. Note that this is not the same thing as an improvement. It's just an inert change.
The same trick can be used on a new drug. Make an inert change to a life saving drug and you can undercut the company that developed the drug to begin with and you'd get a new patent.
With organisms there are two main methods of development: Breeding and Genetic Modifications. Either way the patent holder gets to choose who can grow it. My strain of Spirulina is the result of breeding. If another company wanted to breed an improved strain they'd need my permission to grow it in which case I'd be due royalties, but if another company wanted to make a genetic modification to it that in no way improves it, but makes it different enough, they could reap the benefits of my development.
Since I lack the resources to take my product to market I have decided not to patent it yet. I can do so at any time. If I did patent it I'd only have 20 years of protections and it would then be possible for another company to try and replicate it without compensation. On the other hand if someone inadvertently creates something similar and files for a patent I could challenge that patent under "prior work" rules. So the current rules give me every incentive to keep an invention off the market until I am ready to fully comercialize it.
A Prize system would incentivize me to go to market sooner which would benefit the economy.
Regarding your comment about other countries:
U.S. patents only apply to US territories and have no effect in foreign countries developing or otherwise. There is no universal patent system so if I patented my product in the United States there would be nothing I could legally do about someone in a third world country from getting a sample of it and producing it without paying me royalties. Oftentimes a company concerned about this will pay to patent in every country they can or will exclude from the patent documents key information needed to make it work.
The habit of excluding important details from a patent application can create problems though. For example, the patent on the water powered car described a process of vibrational resonance to decrease the electrical energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but didn't go further. He demonstrated that his invention works, but we don't know enough to recreate it. In all probability it didn't produce more energy than went in, but it might have worked by being far more efficient than a modern electrical car. In any case, since the inventor died without disclosing his secrets his invention died with him.
A more well known example would be how the US government had to spend billions of dollars re-discovering it's own inventions because it refused to disclose to the patent office enough information to create it and lost the original documents with all copies being redacted. That happened several times.
Having an incentive towards secrecy with regards to inventions is a big problem that I think a prize system could solve in some cases at least since you'd have to disclose all the details in that case, not just the details you want to protect. And while I agree with your sentiments about international circumstances a universal patent could be a good idea if done right.
Goes to Brilliant > Learns about Machine Learning & Artificial Intelligence > Builds Artificial Intelligence capable of understanding Brilliant courses > Makes It analyze all Brilliant Courses & Wikipedia Quality Articles > Makes computer model of voice > Makes said AI condense All courses & Wikipedia in short explanatory videos based on animation with text read by voice model > uploads hundreds of videos per day to youtube > Profit ? EDIT : Patent it, of course !
You forgot to patent it!
patents are unenforceable between USA and overseas countries who detest them while building their own economy with USA sales.
Step 1: invest hundrets of millions of dollars into building a maschine capable of processing, storing and filtering this information, hire hundrets of people that act as quality controll
Google was *just* able to build a semi-good voice model (Google Assistant), a cheap neural network browsing on wikipedia wouldn't be able to analyze and understand text with any degree of accuracy.
@Bumblesnuff buffallobath yes it's ridiculous to think that it would solve all problems of humanity but atleast it would be better than humans with their supreme intellect and higher accuracy. But it also ridiculous to compare AI with god, one is a physical and real entity while the other is just a imagination. Praying to AI is not same as praying to god, AI will surely do something while the god would not.
Hi PolyMatter, how about you talking about "pirates"? especially about copyright violations ..
like game, movie, something like that, do you think "Denuvo" is right solution? how game / movie / etc (companies)
Should deal with this problems?
If there's a will, someone will find a way.
They make enough money already
The solution involves being anti-corporate. Minimise copyright so that violation doesn't have to be a norm for legitmate customers. And more importantly, that those companies aren't forced to prosecute for the sake of thier IP rights as is required of them. They could be ok with allowing fan projects because the law didn't force them to protect themselves.
All DRM and anti-tamper software has been cracked before and continues to do so. Denuvo might have set them back for a couple of years, but it has fallen too.
That "solution" is just an arms race that's bever ending. A true solution would involve actual trust between consumers and companies again.
Unfortunately however, many companies have demonstrated time and time again that they do not care for being fair to consumers, and they don't care about laws either, only how they can abuse them to serve themselves and hinder everyone else.
Either corporate leaderships have to change thier behaviours drastically, or they have to be thrown out of thier offices from within, or they have to be forced out in some other way. Failing that (and since I suspect corporate culture is as much to be concerned about as certain individuals.), those companies that will not stop abusing the people within them and without (thus are nearly guiltly of crimes against humanity.), have to be dismantled in thier entirely in the most literal sense, thier infrastructure destroyed utterly. Even though it will mean the unemployement of millions.
For it is that bad. Even moderate me agrees.
But whatever the action taken, it must be against corporate culture. If that can be done non-violently, great, but I'm unsure that's possible in light of those too corrupt to ever change back into decent human beings.
Please don't, i use 123movies and putlockers daily for my home theater
1. Pirate to try something out!
2. Like the product and have nothing against the company's practices? Buy the product so they can keep producing products like that which you bought!
3. Repeat!
The End of Patents: You Can(Not) Invent
just gonna sit here and wait for someone to say "NOT YOU AGAIN"
Commented before 100 likes noice
Justin Y needs a patent cus they're so many fakes out there
Justin Y. Patent Number 1038483394354
Any Fakes will be sued to the full extent of the law.
Paid for your bots this month, I see.
While I usually love your content, this video is incredibly naive. Patents are supposed to protect startups from larger companies. Startups like mine would be shut down inside of a month if anyone could make our product do to economics of scale. Patents are critical to protecting innovators and the focus should be on reforming what things receive patents not on there elimination
Andrew Bachman this video is extremely biased and antilibertarian in nature
So you're saying patent trolls, ridiculously broad patents, and monopolies are just fine because it protects startups?
@Andrew I see copyright and patents allowing big companies to strangle startups far more often.
I see them abuse the system to make the problems they were meant to solve even worse then they were without.
If your not being targeted in some fashion. Your either lucky, or they just haven't come to you, just wait.
Your the one who is naive. We might need solutions to the problems that patents aim to solve. But the patent system fails to do so. It either has to be majorly overhauled, or scraped and started anew.
@@komutsky1879 libertarians don't necessarily believe in intellectual property.
@@komutsky1879 The most hardcore capitalists you can find (anarcho-capitalists), argue intellectual property is an illegitimate concept that always stagnates innovation. Take that for what you will. You can see an IP lawyer & Ancap (Austrian school) economist talk about why that is here: ua-cam.com/video/0IfRmkCxyk8/v-deo.html
Your channel is growing so fast, well done. Great Videos!
smooth twice logo @5:06
5:03 Best thing ever
Your solution is not better at all. It starts with the question, what government should pay for it? You seem to forget that Patents are international. Good look having multiple governments decide what to buy and for how much and how much each government is paying for it.
A non-profit perhaps or something thru the United Nations? Whatever they come up with surely it will be better than what we currently have.
@@TheMillionairesMentalist No it won't. There is no way multiple governments would pay for this, and surely none would let a non profit organisation or the UN decice what its taxpayers should pay money for.
Not to mention the fact that the benefits from each idea or patent vary for each country and it's hard to even assume it's benefit before the company has even done anything.
There is a problem, yes, but this "solution" would be thousand times worse
Just let the Americans pay for it as usual. They already pay for most of the drug r&d.
INatalkaI then stop. If you want. It's not like the little america is having its little head pointed at with a gun and forced. xd
Governments pay for nothing. They rob money from workers and use the loot to pay for stuff that will get them re-elected. (Mr. Trump's government is not included in this criminal action.)
That ad transition was so smooth it was sleazy. Made me feel like I just watched a 9min ad. Don’t do such smooth transitions.
just do it like linustechtips
Anyone else noticed the hidden twice logo? :D TWICE FOR LIFE #ONCE
yes, awesome! you cant easily find that logo by just googling twice, he had to do this on purpose!
I saw it too and I find it genius!
YES I DID
What is twice
“Oohhh so interesting I wonder what he’s gonna say next...”
“...how can we protect ourselves against patents? By signing up for a course on them on skill share...”
“AHHHH POLY MATTER YOU GOT ME AGAIN”
Hahahaha. Im just here cause I had hope for humanity. Luckily some of the comments have restored it. Thank you
the way you snuck in the TWICE logo in 5:08 💀💀💀
5:04 NEVER expected a kpop reference here, much less of my faves, twice. Now am curious about your bias lol
up HAHAH. PolyMatter who's ur bias?
You should make a video about copyright as it is far worse! Some of them last for more than centuries. It makes no sense...
Excellent video : Note about the Tragedy of Commons: Elinor Olstrum (economist specialized in common goods) shows that the example you quoted with the pasture (explained by Hadrin) is a misconception, implicating that 1. a system of shared resource like that will always fails (fatalism) and 2. people gonna behave badly so a system (like a state) should take control of the situation. This metaphor is then a too simplified version of how competition works in limited resource system, underestimating the capacity of people to find solutions and to change the rule of the problem. Sure there is place where this sitation can apply at 100%, but it doesn't really succeed to describe how it could be solved. I recommend you to check her books, hard but good reading, you will see models of solutions for these circumstances, by going over this simplified (but useful) example.
You have an amazing upload schedule, but your videos are still very good! Keep up the good work!
Nice Twice reference btw ✌️
This is exactly what we should be doing. Bounty/prize systems are so much better than monopoly-based alternatives. There would, of course, be issues in selection and funding, but the current system is really untenable. It's one of the major reasons why, after completing by BSci in Computer Science, I realized I couldn't in good conscience work in the tech industry. Software patents, DRM, and surveillance were all things I hard-line refused to be associated with even indirectly at several degrees of separation, but they were all so near-omnipresent that I had to turn my back on the field as a whole, even though it was the only thing I was ever really good at.
...when I was a kid, I wanted to invent things. But as I learned about the patent system, that dream faded quickly. I want to bring new things into the world, not participate in the carving-up of the space of possible technologies into exclusive silos. Most of the purpose of patents these days is either for MAD as mentioned in the video or as minefields sown to actively _prevent_ competitors from exploring a technological direction (whether or not you plan to go there yourselves).
Even worse, countries like the USA allow even further loopholes on top of the abusiveness of the traditional patent system (There, pharmaceutical patents can be renewed indefinitely by changing a small detail of the drug or its manufacturing process and filing new safety paperwork. Even INSULIN is still under patent there, apparently!).
EDIT: Alternately (probably with fewer of the negative side effects others brought up in the comments), the modern patent system could be modified in such a way to both absolutely require specificity (like it originally did in the USA, with full blueprints included in the patent application and often a requirement to donate a working prototype or miniature model to a public museum) and to require the patent holder to licence at a certain maximum rate to anybody who asked (making it impossible to hold a patent purely to prevent a technology disruptive to to your business from being invented/commercialized by your competitors)
Hiii may I ask what did you go into eventually?
@@adamkox18 I'm... still unemployed. I only just started seriously looking for things I could do, then the pandemic hit, and since I'm already living with my parents for free in my hometown, it didn't make sense to blindly move to the city, probably become injured (maybe permanently) by the pandemic, and go into ever-increasing amounts of debt a month for the 'privilege' of working a job that didn't cover rent and food.
My current strategy, if you can call it that, is to look for a clerical job with the local public library or government. If I can continue living at home, it doesn't have to pay well or have many hours, because the value of remaining at home (even just monetarily, taking advantage of the amazing logistics and economies of scale my family is known for, buying everything on sale and in bulk and cooking/repairing/building as much as possible ourselves) is more than any amount of money I could reasonably make in a so-called 'entry-level' job.
I give this video 4 out of 5 stars. The minus one star is because I don't think the "prize" solution is the right answer to the problem. You had EVERYTHING right up to that point.
I think your dichotomy left out a very important perspective:
Invention is neither a right nor a trade - but an ADVERTISEMENT.
Creativity is work. It's very unpredictable and difficult work dependent upon numerous unquantifiable factors, but worn nonetheless.
Imagine someone paints for a living. They could charge people exorbitant prices for pictures of their paintings, but how would anyone find out about their talent if they did so?
How would they get commissions for future paintings?
How about songwriters? Do people pay them to hear their songs, or do they pay them to write more songs?
Same goes for innovators of more practical things. Dozens of things are invented daily (the credit for which often goes to employers rather than the individuals who were more directly responsible for the ideas) that produce products that improve upon previous ones. And the engineers who designed them aren't usually paid in perpetuity for the use of their inventions - they're paid to invent MORE.
Innovation is not a product; it is a service. You cannot steal something by duplicating it. You can, however, reduce competition by making it harder for other people to invent similar things.
Tl;dr:
Intellectual property is a BS concept that has slowed innovation in the world for generations, not elevated it.
dude this video is EXQUISITELY edited. bravo man bravo.
At 1:25 you mentioned apple’s revenue. In this context apple’s profit, which is ofc much lower, would be more appropriate :)
I think one of the most dangerous things that ever happened was the spread of the idea of 'intellectual property'.
No, I'm not talking about copyright or patent laws as such - the original framing of copyright laws was in fact based on the notion you COULDN'T really own an idea or concept or something as nebulous as a story.
And yet, somehow, somewhere, we've had decades upon decades of propaganda trying to convince us that you can 'own' a story, or an idea, or a process, or something equally abstract - something which doesn't really exist in tangible form in it's own right, but only in the patterns laid down in physical medium.
When you 'own' a story, you don't own, say the book it's printed on, no you own the pattern of that story - the specific combination of words - the PATTERN.
And that pattern is the same whether it's written on paper, digitally, or even recited orally from memory.
But somewhere along the line people have been pushing the notion that you can 'own' such a pattern in the same way you can own a car.
But self evidently you cannot.
It follows from the rules themselves;
If I own a car, the laws around it relate to nobody forcibly taking that car from me, and that I get to dictate what happens to that specific car.
If I 'own' a story, the laws around it related to FORCING OTHERS to not do anything at all with the pattern of that story without getting my explicit permission.
In other words, one set of laws is about keeping others from taking something from me, the other is mostly about preventing others from doing things with anything at all that resembles my 'pattern'.
Another problem should be visible here - the pattern is abstract, and remains relevant whether there is just one copy of that pattern or 100 billion.
Whether it costs me anything or not, I can prevent anyone from copying my pattern, even though I have no means other than the law to do so that makes any kind of sense...
The laws about me owning a car only relate to that specific car. Not to every car in existence, or even just every car of the same model, no, just that one car.
It gets worse when you start being vague about what exactly your 'pattern' consists of. Because if your 'pattern' is vague enough, you not only get to dictate that nobody can create an exact copy of your pattern, you can prevent people making anything even remotely like your pattern.
And now you've functionally crippled people's creativity or ingenuity...
Every one of these 'patterns' that gets legally protected, shrinks the entire space of possible creative works, meaning everyone else is more and more hemmed in and restricted.
How can you justify the idea that you 'own' something that's so detrimental to others when seen from the global perspective?
You don't own something that you gain, but nobody really loses...
Quite the opposite - you by definition of the laws involved don't really gain anything as such, you've just ensured that everyone else loses something.
Intellectual Property is a toxic concept. Especially the 'property' part.
You shouldn't ever be framing such things as if they can be related to property ownership, because it has serious and very bad consequences for everyone to do so...
exactly. "IP" is the idea that you can tell other people what to do with their body and property.
As somebody in the IP field, I need to point out that this video had some factual errors. Primarily, you showed an example of three patents early on, labeling them all as patents. However those were not all patents. The example of the patent for filing patents was a patent publication, which is not a patent grant. All patent applications publish but not all applications become grants. Showing a publication and saying it’s a patent is just plain wrong and misleading. I know you are young and these videos are amazing for somebody your age but research is important when discussing these topics.
Ad hominem eh. That does not help your credibility.
Yes, thank you! I work in IP too and was looking for a comment like yours. This video was either very simplified or just plain not well researched. As if statutory requirements for patent eligibility don't exist and anything can be patented.
My question is what's the complete cost of filing for a patent. Is it really in 4 figures, if so that's screwed up. Even amongst startups only the well funded ones can afford it then.
God, I really, REALLY hate the term IP.
It's a toxic distortion of what these laws were originally created for, and has some seriously strong negative effects on people's perceptions of such laws.
Conflating abstract concepts and patents with physical property is perhaps one of the most insidious forms of propaganda of the 20th century.
Truly, truly awful.
Go back to the gutter.
I would suggest a simpler solution. Why not allow a limited monopoly up until a set profit margin after which the idea becomes public domain? (If it didn’t hit the threshold after so many years it would similarly become public domain)
You could incentive more precise language, be more individualistic taking into account research and production cost and the admin cost could all be incorporated into the patent fee. Ideas with greater potential would cost more to patent but this would also allow for subsidies to be offered start ups and such. Profit trolls would also matter less as you could include settlements in this profit margin.
Is this video at 90% speed or something? Sounds.. slightly off
Yeah it does sound off
I watched at 1.25x speed
but it is suitable for us English learners😃
I thought the same! I assumed it was my brain.
Yeah. His former video presentation speed was just patented by his competition
Video felt normal until I saw your comment
Bringing me back to my intro to OOP class with that bubble sort hahaha
Patents add more cost to R&D, than the funds it supposedly allows inventors to recoup.
Agreed
Not so sure for patents in general, but there's more than enough evidence that all the lawsuits and such associated with software patents vastly exceed the financial benefit anyone holding such patents will ever get out of it...
Ultra smooove transition at the end like always
*I farted so I just invented some new air. **_Time to patent!_*
You keep saying that pharma companies may actually need patents. But they also abuse the system by "repatenting", which is a loophole to make tiny unnecessary change to their drug formula and get an extra 20 years.
"More likely everyone would act in their own best interests."
Ok, but it's very likely at least a significant number of farmers would form a cooperative and either vote on land use policy or collaborate informally or elect one of them with the possibility of immediate recall to manage it for them. Your own best interests are to cooperate with this centralized authority because the alternative is that it will disenfranchise you or ban you from using the land through superior numbers.
no
The first minute of this video is basically explaining why no one takes just one piece of candy on Halloween
5:04 TWICE LOGO
where yall Onces
also Tzuyu❤❤❤
*patents the solution* "A way to fix the patent system"
I think the best solution would be so you when you file a patent, instead of making it so other companies can't use your idea, you make it so they have to pay you out a certain amount. For example, if a company uses another companies idea, they must pay out a certain percentage for a certain amount of time.
The main problem of everyone sueing everyone else in bad faith still remains. The court costs are the main problem.
This would only mitigate the problem so people couldn't sue for all the "offender's" money and instead only get some of it.
Still better than what we have now though.
Another problem about this is that you have to litigate over what percentage and percentage of what should be paid.
A flat fee per unit sold/used would be better
royalty fees
Maybe we could, depending on industry, exponentialy increase the price of patents depending on the number of patents held by the parent organization.
I wrote a whole essay on this (specifically on pharmaceuticals) and I am so happy to see someone much smarter come to the same conclusion as I am!
I have several problems with this video. First, patents ARE a right and not a trade as you said we should have us think of them. You only look at corporations with patents when everyone can have one. One of the best examples of this was the story described in the film Flash of Genius where Robert Kearns won his hard fought legal battle against the Ford Motor Company due to his patent.
Further, software patents are fairly difficult to get. One of the things you cannot get a patent from is an “abstract idea” and that includes most software. Lawyers who write software patents come up with ways to get around this (but that might at a cost of some patent protection), but you also have to realize that the drafting process takes on average 2 years for the patent to be issued (and protection is only allotted from the date of filing, so patent holders only have a real effective date of protection of 18 years) and patents are invalidated all the time for being wrongfully issued anyway.
Finally, even if a patent holder wins a lawsuit, they are usually only awarded a reasonable royalty for the portion of the product that uses the patent (which is far less in today’s time in very complex devices such as smartphones). So things are not nearly as bad as you make seem.
Edit: Also wanted to say that doing away with patents all together may stop giant corporations from profiting at such a large degree, but again it prevents small guys from obtaining a right they are due (as with Kearns) and that in turns discourages innovation from that perspective. I'd rather live in a world where EVERYONE one can benefit than where no one can benefit just so big corporations can't earn more money.
Hmm... You misheard the sentence. Hes saying we should look at it differently: as a trade. Not suggesting they are not a right. As for how hard it is, this is a common issue that is wide spread. Countless stories about small business getting brought to court over, IE: Code in a game that links a game with it's servers is somehow a trolls IP, can't get more abstract... The existence of this issue in any capacity disproves the idea you can't patent an "abstract idea". Lastly, these issues are not being fixed, they are being amplified. Getting rid of patents would not be my solution but something needs to be done. If you only see a flawed system getting worse and not being fixed, don't be shocked when people start wanting to remove it entirely. China, imho, does not have the best system, but at some point our system will get so defiled that it will look like the best course of action... So ignoring issues or minimizing them is not a viable option, just look at the issues and think about how to fix them...
@@jsveterans6949 First, I did not mishear him. The reason why I stress the fact that they are rights and not "trades" is because giving up this right is such a radical idea that should ultimately be abandoned. Is the current system flawed? Sure, but the reason why patents date back to the 1800s is because society at large recognizes their value. They serve a purpose in protecting the intellectual property of a creator. Before statute protected this right, the stealing of work was so widespread that creators were afraid of publication for fear of intellectual theft.
Second, I did not make up my point about abstract ideas. That comes straight from the US Supreme Court if you do not believe me. As I mentioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office often grant patents that they shouldn't but there is already a quick and easy process in place for invalidating those patents. It is a somewhat expensive process, but it beats having to litigate it in court at the risk of millions of dollars on the line.
Finally, I think you are somewhat misinformed. China also has a patent system as they are members of the World Trade Organization which states that each member must conform to a treaty regarding intellectual property (i.e. their laws must conform to the treaty). While in practice, intellectual property infringement is widespread in China, at least on the books they adhere to the principles of patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
If you do not agree with the current system, then look at the argument laid forth by Uniquenameosaurus on his second video regarding and advocating Copyright Piracy. I know it's an hour long video, but it's definitely worth the watch if you are interested in this sort of thing. I don't even fully agree with everything he says either, but at the very least he acknowledges the value of the current system and that abandoning it is foolish.
The thing is small companies and independent inventors would be hurt in a world without patents. Larger companies could steal their ideas even more than they already do without any compensation.
patent: *EXIST*C H I N A : *TRIGGERED*
Lol hypocrite
same except china is growing and making bank while overseas corporations are triggered
One small issue here, patents are issued by country.
Thus there is no way to infringe a patent except if you do so in a country that HAS a patent on such things.
And patents have to be applied for individually by country, so just because you have a patent on something in the US, someone that operates entirely within say, the UK doesn't have to give the slightest shit about your patent.
So a country which doesn't issue patents at all can let people do anything, as long as they don't then try and sell their stuff in a country in which something they've done is patented...
We need only tighten what can be registered as a patent, and by that same token, narrowly define what constitutes as patent trolling.
you did not answer.
How to Fix the Patent System?
What's horrible is that the $5k-$10k fees actively block real inventors. Like no one can realistically make a company unless they're like upper 5-10% of wealth if they have to plop down that much money on something that might not even be profitable at all.
The prize idea sounds silly. How can you determine the value of an invention beford the market has its say?
This would effectively kill a large portion of start ups that survive on intellectual property. This is especially true in more developed industries, like automotive and medical, where most start-ups’ strategy is to be acquired. Why would a big company acquire a smaller company when they could just copy their idea, and outsell the start-up on name recognition alone.
Honestly, I think you kinda fumbled on the solution part.
I was really hoping you would make the leap to NO patents, period.
Even if you did a 30 min video on ballpoint pen i'd still watch it cuz your videos'r so good
What do you call a cow with no legs? Ground beef. Ok ill leave
Dont leave make another one
This 'solution' is horrific. Patents exist not only for large corporations but (maybe most importantly) the small players in the industry.
Say I invent some extremely useful technological feature, one large corporations would kill for to use.
Now say instead of receiving a patent, I receive a prize of $15 million. That prize is peanuts for a company say Apple, Google and Microsoft.
There is nothing to stop those companies to invest much more than your prize to replicate the invention and profit from it, leaving you no chance to compete and have any leverage above those large ones.
next how to fix copyright , fair use , the public domain or trademarks , please
Replace the patent with a negotiable right of first divulgation instead. This eliminates statute duration and monopoly, introduces market pricing for ideas/innovations, and a model of legal protection for trade secrets.
Taxes are rarely, if ever, the solution.. terrible idea..
Perhaps there should be a tier or category system for patents.. certain types of patents for certain industries are very short while others are much longer.. depending on the value of the product or difficulty in creating it..
There should be a forum and each major company should appoint a representative headed by someone who no longer has a vested interest. An industry leader. Perhaps someone already in philanthropy. I nominate Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They have proven themselves worthy with their commitment to the giving pledge. I would also nominate Marc Cuban if he was willing to step down from all his other interest. He's a well-spoken thought leader with the visibility, transparency and practical insights to make this a reality.
I think the bigger issue with prize incentives for inventions is that the emphasis would then be for companies to continually create "new" things and not necessarily things that consumers want.
I just love this channel
Everyone talking about Money and Patents (and rightly you should), but I'm over here losing my mind on that he used the TWICE logo in a graphic to represent the word "twice." I'm actually dying and I love it! :>
Never clicked on a video to make an overused joke so fast.
Also that's a lot of videos around a related subject
Some Chinese companies do copy American companies like apple. However it is unfair to say apple or a company like apple would be necessarily profitable. Apple has a lot of gravity in the market, and they control how a Chinese competitor can compete outside of China. But if you scale it down to companies without influence, the model breaks down. You might want to stop monopolies. But the patent system is not fundamentally flawed this way.
Hey, can you do a video on the rise of Microsoft in the past few months?
Kento Nishi I thought Microsoft was dying
@@mistakenmeme They aren't. In fact, they passed Apple on Friday with 851B, and Apple with 848B. Microsoft is now on top, because of their cloud, AI, and service advancements. They are no longer a Windows company, but a cloud service company.
Kento Nishi I mean that makes sense. I’ve seen tons of stuff about Microsoft’s AI.
If someone has an idea for a physical object, it could be the most ingenious solution to a particular problem ever. But that doesn't mean it will sell. It could cost as much or a substantial portion of what it would take to start producing an item as it would to patent something. If a person has an idea a manufacturer might be interested in producing, they run the risk of having their idea stolen if they go around to different manufacturers to produce the item.
My solution to both of these problems as well as a few others is for the government to create a repository of encrypted files timestamped and attributable to the person who originated the file. Then, a person can produce or submit items to manufacturers and still hold claim to it. All a person would need for proof would be the encryption key or more securely, the check sum for the file.
What is the name of the middle company at 6:28
Google Lens told me it's Instapaper. Blows my mind how insane Google's AI is.
@@pana_d thx dude!
Nicely constructed and well-researched.
49 views, 49 likes.
Nice
How about starting by splitting the difference? Cut patent length in half and offer a small financial kickback to start, then gradually transition to lower time and more cash-back. Maybe a "flex benefit" where, by the end of the transition, a patent filing will be offered their payout and may "buy" Monopoly duration up to some maximum length from that value. To illustrate, let's say it costs $5k to file for a patent. The filing is evaluated and it's determined you'd get $10k for it. You can take the $10k and pocket it, or you could spend, say, 10% for 3 months of Monopoly duration (so you get $9k and patent protection for 3 months), plus one more month for each additional 10% you spend (in this example, $1k for 3 months, up to a max of 12 months if you turn down the entire $10k and spend an additional $2k).
0:09 Imagine Communism, Land is everyone's.
This episode was written like an essay. Thesis, counterclaim, body, conclusion
Yay a new vid
5.05 POLYMATTER IS A ONCEEE. So glad I subbed💗💗💗
I like.
But in the case of just writing creators a cheque up front in lieu of a patent, how do you determine the value of an invention? I'd argue that the value of an invention often isn't immediately apparent. And who decides?
It could be done by companies in the field wanting a solution for problems that they currently face.
7:29 you'll learn one day my friend.Great video but a naive idea.
Your subscriptions should be much higher. Excellent videos!
Good video, terrible idea
Yeah, that won't work.
This needs to be top on YT trending list,
This is dumb- Would the taxpayer make more out of it? I think not
Coca Cola was sold for $1 in 1899, because the owner at that time didn't see the potential of it. To connect this with the solution you offered, many patents would be over/underpriced, because the true potential is often shown when it actually hit the market. It's about what you do with patents, and the price isn't permanent. Moreover, the one that makes a patent may not be the best in the market; you can see this with most of China products- so patents are actually very important for companies, as they allowed them to improve and succed at marketing etc.
And where would the money come from? What if I decided to use patent 10 years after it was patented, and in the next 10 years change bussiness from $2000 to $2.000.000 a month? How much would I pay, and when? If it's gonna be "something now, something later- depends how much you make" it's pretty similar to the situation we have today. Furthermore, I see many othe problems, which will just remove one problem and make the other problems even bigger- for example, companies that own markets will be even more powerful, as they pay the most for what is limited and offered (selling a grassy hill to a higest buyer with the cows). It's just another side of a same coin, nothing solved.
Patents are actually very counterproductive
BayorkTV Sutrohz Explain.
@@malacki6554 Video above. If people sue each other endlessly because one ''copied'' someone's else patent, well there's always less people that will want to innovate and work towards progression.
BayorkTV Sutrohz Well you shouldn’t copy someone’s patent,you shouldn’t have the fruits of someone else’s labor
The problem is that sometimes there wasn’t much labor. Of course it costs a lot of time and money to develope a drug, but the simple concepts patented by many tech companies is evidentally counterintuitive.
@@malacki6554 That's hopelessly naive, all you need to do is see the completely frivoulous patents that exist.
Should basic physics be patentable? Since most of us think no, the current patent system that allows just that is broken.
It is impossible, litterally physically impossible not to violate someone's patent, except to create or do, nothing.
But I bet someone tried patenting doing nothing too. There's no way not to violate a patent, every breath you take likely violates several patents, in all seriousness.
Patents need to be redefined as a boost for achieving something first rather than a cockblock for innovation.
Like a one year patent to get a headstart in market share.
Ok let’s get rid of patents and there’s nothing to stop people taking the credit for inventions that weren’t theirs
Easy. Stop accepting new patent applications let currently held patents go to expiration.
And that's the heart if the issue isn't it? Can you consider intellectual property as you would consider material or land property? it's not physical, you do not "have it", it's aslo not like money, where an international bank system guarantee you ownership of virtual value. An idea is created by the mind from thin air, and as such it is not linked to any form of capital, labor or prestige. Anyone has the capacity of producing the same idea, so why the fact that someone produced it first should give them any advantage over others that also have the same idea? Ideas are intangible, there is no value system of iedeas, so how can ideas be properties? That's why patents are void after some years.
Fortunately, not too many companies see patent litigation against competitors as a greater source of income than the sale of goods.
First
Kul som F** gg
Bet you are 10
You've proposed one idea, but there are lots of variants and alternatives.
The first thing is that you could blanketly get rid of software patents without having any noticeable effect on innovation. My argument is that now that we've got processors, higher level languages, compilers, etc everything remaining is obvious to those skilled in the art. Show somebody what code is trying to do, and somebody else will be able to reimplement it independently. So there is no "invention" involved. It is merely going through the motions to say that something is now important. No one looks at patent literature to understand how to implement software, or even to try to work around existing patents.
To actually identify novelty, patent examination is irretrievably flawed. Instead, one idea is that for a patent to be granted, someone should be putting up prize money for a problem to be solved, such as with the X prizes or the original Longitude rewards. In this case, there might be no further need for compensation to spur innovation. But if you want to involve granting government monopolies, you could cap the number of patents issued each year, and only issue patents to those inventors with the highest bids for the patent monopoly.
Another idea is to require annual fees on an increasing scale to keep a patent in force. If the cost is low initially, there would be an incentive to disclose many ideas, to protect from other people filling first. But as the fees increase, there would be incentive to not renew and thus make more ideas in the public domain sooner.
Hey first
Hey Lars
First Haha nice one
Hei Lars
I would recommend you these four videos don't know if you would consider
•Are Tv's dying?
•Are Table Top and tcg games are dying?
•Disney+ Vs Netflix
•Are mobile games taking over
I usually love your videos but this one was just terrible.
Your "solution" is beyond ridiculous. I wouldn't even expect such a dumb response from a 10yo.
For starters,
How exactly do you determine the amount of "prize money" a patent deserves?
And who does the estimation? Govt bureaucrats? lol
How are you going to convince the inventor and the taxpayer on how you came up with that number?
I'd say just pick an amount that's large enough to set a person up for life several times over. Say, $500 million. That's about 10,000 times GDP Per Capita for a country like the USA or Australia. Also, not too shabby an amount of income for a corporation either.
@@Roxor128 But each patent has a different value doesn't it?
A patent for a barely useful chemical is not as valuable as a patent for a life saving drug developed with billions of dollars investment in R&D.
Are going to give the same $500 million for both patents?
It seems like reverse chain logic in this video. Namely, patent trolls are a nuisance, how do we stop them? Well clearly we need to reform the entire system, not just impose restrictions and requirements on litigious patent buyers
As valid as your questions are, and as half-baked as the solution proposed in this video is, you do not need to say things like "I wouldn't even expect such a dumb response from a 10yo." Maybe you should try come up with solutions for a change.