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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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