Copyright makes sense to me. Since nobody else is ever likely to make another work of art, music, prose, or program that is identical to mine, giving me an exclusive but limited right to monetize it does not severely restrict others' right to do the same with their expression of their ideas, even if extremely similar to mine own. I do think copyrights extend to too long a length of time, though.
A patent is a different creature, because the owner believes he owns a concept, not it's expression, and I know from experience that ideas are seldom original, often occur simultaneously, are often poorly documented and definitely do inhibit others' creativity and ability to do the same with similar ideas.
So copyrights don't seem to harm society or culture, while allowing the creator the ability to make some money, with no downside to quantity. Patents, when used a lot, inhibit new creations by freezing development until patents run out. I think progress is limited by the excessive numbers of patents, not enhanced. Perhaps they should be limited to the best 100 ideas each year or some such. But giving exclusive monopolies for many years on ideas of marginal value is not the way to go, I think.
I'm dubious of the idea that the government granting a long exclusive license to the "owner" of an idea has any merit at all if looked at from a public benefit perspective, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that a limited license can get an idea to market and the public can eventually benefit by the full disclosure of the idea. That is not what is happening. Patents are written to obscure ideas, not make it possible to easily implement them; read any modern patent and see for yourself. The licenses granted are for far too long and tricks are used to extend them far beyond the useful life of the idea, so that they actually stifle industry's ability to use the invention without paying prohibitive fees.
Here's a prescription to fix the problems:
1. Severely limit the value of patents by reducing their life to a reasonable period, say 10 years, of which 5 years is an exclusive right, followed by 5 years during which anybody can license.
2. Limit the license fees obtainable to a small percentage of the original sale price of a sell-able product, shared equally by all patent claimants, say 2%. If my product sells for $10, all patent claimants on that product may share equally 20 cents. The manufacturer can put that money in escrow and the patent claimants can fight over it.
I think these changes, implemented by Congress, would do much to reduce the flaws in the system, while still keeping some semblance of the requirements in the Constitution.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Elwood Diverse.
Re: Patent Lobotomy
Copyright makes sense to me. Since nobody else is ever likely to make another work of art, music, prose, or program that is identical to mine, giving me an exclusive but limited right to monetize it does not severely restrict others' right to do the same with their expression of their ideas, even if extremely similar to mine own. I do think copyrights extend to too long a length of time, though.
A patent is a different creature, because the owner believes he owns a concept, not it's expression, and I know from experience that ideas are seldom original, often occur simultaneously, are often poorly documented and definitely do inhibit others' creativity and ability to do the same with similar ideas.
So copyrights don't seem to harm society or culture, while allowing the creator the ability to make some money, with no downside to quantity. Patents, when used a lot, inhibit new creations by freezing development until patents run out. I think progress is limited by the excessive numbers of patents, not enhanced. Perhaps they should be limited to the best 100 ideas each year or some such. But giving exclusive monopolies for many years on ideas of marginal value is not the way to go, I think.
Patent System Too Much of A Possibly Good Thing
I'm dubious of the idea that the government granting a long exclusive license to the "owner" of an idea has any merit at all if looked at from a public benefit perspective, but I'm willing to entertain the idea that a limited license can get an idea to market and the public can eventually benefit by the full disclosure of the idea. That is not what is happening. Patents are written to obscure ideas, not make it possible to easily implement them; read any modern patent and see for yourself. The licenses granted are for far too long and tricks are used to extend them far beyond the useful life of the idea, so that they actually stifle industry's ability to use the invention without paying prohibitive fees.
Here's a prescription to fix the problems:
1. Severely limit the value of patents by reducing their life to a reasonable period, say 10 years, of which 5 years is an exclusive right, followed by 5 years during which anybody can license.
2. Limit the license fees obtainable to a small percentage of the original sale price of a sell-able product, shared equally by all patent claimants, say 2%. If my product sells for $10, all patent claimants on that product may share equally 20 cents. The manufacturer can put that money in escrow and the patent claimants can fight over it.
I think these changes, implemented by Congress, would do much to reduce the flaws in the system, while still keeping some semblance of the requirements in the Constitution.