Countries are starting to get into the patent business; countries like France and South Korea are setting up patent entities to protect domestic companies. "Intellectual Discovery presents itself as a defensive alliance: if a South Korean company finds itself targeted in a lawsuit, for instance, it can access the patents being compiled by Intellectual Discovery to hit back." I support this. If, say, a small Dutch company were to come under unfair patent aggression by bullies like Apple and Microsoft (quite likely these days), I damn well expect my government to protect them from it. If you can't fix the system, work with it. As simple as that.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-10
At times it is amazing to me how people think bureaucracy can micromanage things.
Money tied to research costs.
You don't think people can make stuff up?
In Canada, we have something called R&D credits where the government hands out R&D money. Do you know what happens? There are entire consulting firms who just sit around writing applications and getting money.
It is insanely easy to make up anything to submit.
And if you then make the cost tracking too high, good luck with any small inventor keeping enough records and everything to actually make use of the process.
And now what you've done is moved the monetary value of a patent from it's utility to how much time was spent on it. This would like paying software developers based on lines of code instead of functionality.
As to the 'people' having a vested interest. This doesn't work elsewhere in the democratic system, why would it work in relatively small regulatory body of the government? This is not healthcare or education where people can get up in arms about... and even in those cases they rarely demand value for money... instead... they just want more stuff.
Member since:
2007-02-18
What gets accepted as an invention?
Well, now you have the same problem as today with a 'patent' office evaluating patents to see if they are valid or not.
Yes, but if the government is paying for invention disclosures, EVERYONE has a vested interested in making sure worthless inventions do not get accepted.
The problem is no evaluation is really happening. But if taxpayers are now invested in the process, they want value for money.
And it's not a free for all. The only compensation they get is some percentage over their research costs. If everyone hacks something together to get it evaluated and it passes, well, where are their research procedures?
Again, it's because no evaluation is happening, because of the assumptions that patents are magically good for the economy. But now if the government pays for it, then we can actually ask the question: well how much is this invention worth to the economy?
Right now, that question isn't asked when a patent is evaluated because it's assumed that, once granted, the worth to the economy .
Lastly, you seem to forget that inventors in the proposed system do not get any control of the invention. So no licencing, thus no patent trolling, or even patent lawsuits. That would reduce the amount of inventions that gets submitted from those who are looking to extort a continued licence fee.