> A famous example of how ridiculous the patent system is. Like anyone who
>> has driven in light rain for more than 30 minutes didn't independently
>> invent an intermittent wiper.
>>
>> --
>
>That statement's a famous example of not understanding patents.
>
>Ideas aren't patentable, only the process or machine that implements
>them is. Then you have to teach the rest of the world how you did
>it. And you have to be the first.
And this makes the patent system not ridiculous?
Of course. Patents are so *not* ridiculous that the Founders provided for them in the US constitution. They're so not ridiculous--their value so widely recognized--that systems exist in Europe, Asia, Australia, and just about any country one can name.
Patents provide an essential incentive for certain kinds of innovation. Like drugs. Without patents, we wouldn't have them, not the new ones, anyway.
Patents stimulate progress and embolden risk-takers, leagues of inventors each striving to invent something new, and be first. They benefit everyone. Sure, there are some silly patents, but mostly, patents work. Try scanning the patent archives sometime--it's a public domain goldmine.
If you don't see their value, you must not use antibiotics, ICs, computers, or a bunch of other cool stuff.
Cheers, James Arthur
Well-designed patent law can drive people to devise useful things.
In my opinion, many inventions are overlooked because they aren't necessarily profitable. But those holes (I see) might be as much of an indication of how well our patent system motivates people.
Our patent system might tend to overcomplicate things. An extremely efficient design is painstaking and totally fascinating IMO, but some such designs might be more difficult to protect with a patent because trying to stop individuals from making and using their own things is impractical.
Right... Sure... A.G. Bell STOLE the telephone from Meucci, and even manipulated the patent office to do it.
But not like intermittent wipers. The patent system didn't give us intermittent wipers, it likely delayed the introduction of intermittent wipers and made them cost more.
Having to pay for copying the design of intermittent wipers was because the car makers didn't come up with their own design. Again, to reiterate the same idea you continue denying, having to pay the originator is what motivates much invention in the first place. Your persistence sounds sound like Third World politics.
It's true that an inventor can ask too much for his invention, and if he's got a patent he can hold up the use of that invention.
That's his choice, his reward for having invented and disclosed the thing, but it's obviously not in his best financial interest. The inventor profits only if the thing is made and sold, so that's what usually happens.
Maybe this gent's mistake was trying to pitch his idea to Detroit, a recalcitrant dinosaur that even today resists innovation.
Cheers, James Arthur
It's true that an inventor can ask too much for his invention, and if he's got a patent he can hold up the use of that invention.
That's his choice, his reward for having invented and disclosed the thing, but it's obviously not in his best interest financially. The inventor profits only if the thing is made and sold. That's the incentive, and that's what usually happens.
Maybe this gent's mistake was trying to pitch his idea to Detroit, a recalcitrant dinosaur that even today resists innovation.
Cheers, James Arthur
I re-inserted the "Like Drugs" you chose to snip.
They did come up with their own designs which turned out after much argument to be similar enough to infringe a patent and cost them (and so the buyers of cars) $millions.
Are you seriously suggesting than large car manufacturers with the ability to design and manufacture whole cars could not come up with a design for an intermittent wiper without stealing someone else's?
Most invention is motivated by having a problem which needs a solution. I would wager most patent searches are done by those who have already invented a solution and are checking if someone else already patented a similar solution which means they would have to pay license fees to use their own invention or go back and invent a different enough solution which does not infringe a patent.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:21:12 -0700, James Arthur wrote: ...
What Detroit _really_ needs is a turn signal flasher that, after, say, one minute, gives a loud alarm to the driver, as a reminder to those idiots who drive down the freeway with their turn signal flashing.
Cheers! Rich
an engine over-temperature alarm.
never again will I buy a car whose coolant reservoir is opaque, regardless of the colour of the coolant.
Cheers Terry
Measure the capacitance thru a hose to the coolant ;-)
...Jim Thompson
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required