I think current patent law needs to be reformed to allow "fair use" of new technologies that have already been developed.
Click to vote
10%9 Votes
Strongly Disagree
14%13 Votes
Disagree
16%15 Votes
Undecided
38%35 Votes
Agree
23%21 Votes
Strongly Agree
10%9 Votes
Strongly Disagree
14%13 Votes
Disagree
16%15 Votes
Undecided
38%35 Votes
Agree
23%21 Votes
Strongly Agree
Male
Female
0%0 Votes
Strongly Disagree
20%9 Votes
Disagree
14%6 Votes
Undecided
48%21 Votes
Agree
18%8 Votes
Strongly Agree
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
I disagree. There have been several instances lately that I can think of where patent lawsuits are stiffing new progressive business ideas. If you hold a patent on something and you are not using that patent, just sitting on it so someone else can not use it, then there needs to be a provision of the law that allows another company to use your patent and pay you a royalty. How they would determine what that royalty would be I cant really say but surely there has to be a way.
Why is that jondough? Are you saying that if I invent something it doesn't belong to me, and I can't do whatever the heck I want to with it (including sitting on it)? My, my... that sounds positively socialist! In fact, that was the basic plot line of "Atlas Shrugged." ;o)
You're going to have to tear up your Glenn Beck fan club membership card if you keep this up.
[1 point]2 years ago by plawlerReplyEdited 2 years ago by plawler
We were extended a patent on a combination of drugs that are FDA approved and patented with other companies, very normal, but it's the combo, we discovered, that makes it wonderful for people hooked on pain-killers to get off of them. They took it from us shortly after and now we are having to hire patent lawyers to fight for it. This is very normal to create drugs using other co. drugs.
You may (or may not) have misunderstood what side I am on. In this case I would be on your side of the argument for the reason that you came up with the idea and you plan on using it. But if you had come up with the patent just to keep the idea from being used, then I would be for someone else being able to take over that patent and maybe pay you a small royalty or something.
Yeah, I know. Industries that will suffer if the idea were to become "public" have bought others patents so that they can prevent the public from gaining access to it. It's sad but it's not my call.
I agree that aspects of patent law are in need of an update. But my question is what is "fair use" in this context? "fair use" is defined in copyright law, but that doesn't really apply, nor make sense, to patent laws. So what is (or would be) "fair use" in patent law.
Also what is a "new technology" that has "already been developed"? Seems like it is either new technology, or it is already developed technology. Seems vague and a bit confusing.
This is just one example (since plawler needs examples of everything). It may not be the best example that a person could come up with but it is a good one.
"New technology" in the fact that it is not your standard everyday drive train used in the majority of automobiles, but it has been invented and patented and could be used so it has "already been developed".
By "fair use" I did not mean it in the same sense as copyright law. I mean that if a company (in this case Paice) has patented a technology (over 10 years ago) and has still made no effort to market and use this technology, then other companies could use it and pay a small royalty of some kind (such as the $25 per car that the courts ordered in the first lawsuit).
There are all sorts of technologies that are patented but not being used that could benefit not only the companies that can develop them into products but possibly society as a whole (such as hybrid cars?) Im not advocating that these patents be given away or disregarded, but that they be allowed to be used and the patent holder get some money as well.
This is not uncommon for patents on pharmaceuticals and chemicals, that is where generic brands come from.
Your example is what patent law is for and is good. Person A came up with the idea and patented it. They may not have the money and resources to implement it themselves. They can sell the rights to others to use. Or if, for example, there are only two known ways to do something, they can patent both (assuming they came up with both methods) and only use one. The patent on the other serves the same purpose as the first.
They can set the price they want to sell it for, you can’t say I think it worth $25/car give it to me for that, they get to decide that. If they want $10,000 per car you don’t use their patented process and do something else, and they don’t make any money.
A patent give a person (company) a limited time to make money on the discovery and/or development of a process before it become available to the public. Toyota needs to pay this company to use the process they came up with or wait until their patent expires.
I see no problem with the example give.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Yes, I understand what a patent is for, but I think that with the example given, this company has held this patent for over 10 years and not produced one product. Toyota should pay, a nominal fee (and that is really the hard part, determining a fair fee) and using the idea since the company with the patent is not using it. Again, that is just one example that I have come across....there are literally thousands of examples similar to this one.
I have heard rumor that GM owns a lot of hybrid patents, but doesn't really use them (for whatever reason) but wont sell or allow other car makers to use them either....I don't have facts on that its just a rumor, but still, there are plenty of other examples out there.
"this company has held this patent... and not produced one product." -- The fact they have not produced any thing is irrelevant.
"Toyota should pay, a nominal fee (and that is really the hard part, determining a fair fee) and using the idea since the company with the patent is not using it." -- Toyota can do just that. They pick up the phone call the other company and say "how much do you want for a license to use your patent?" The other company will tell Toyota how much they want and Toyota can write them a check if they find the price acceptable. If not they can move on and/or wait.
"this company has held this patent for over 10 years" -- If they don't like the price the company wants, they can wait another 10 years and the patent will expire and anyone can do anything they want with it. Patents are only good for 20 years; you just seem to want to set that to a lower time frame. (Well technically patents are good for up to 21 years if done properly in accordance with the Paris Convention, but most US patents are just 20 years.)
"The fact they have not produced any thing is irrelevant." -- It may be irrelevant to you but not to me. I don't think certain technologies should be forced to sit on a shelf for 20 years. That is why I would like to see modification to the patent law.
"Toyota can do just that. They pick up the phone call the other company and say "how much do you want for a license to use your patent?" The other company will tell Toyota how much they want and Toyota can write them a check if they find the price acceptable. If not they can move on and/or wait." -- I understand that is the current law...again, that is why I think the law needs to be amended.
"That is why I would like to see modification to the patent law." -- modified to what degree and end? Sorter term? What do you think is an appropriate time?
“I understand that is the current law...again, that is why I think the law needs to be amended.” -- Again amended to what? There is a method in the current law to us the patent just as you want, by paying the holder of the patent so I’m not sure what you want to change. Do you want the person who is buying to also be the one who sets the sales price? Well if that is the case, I’d just want to pay $0.0001 to use the patent. Do you want some government bureaucrat telling everyone what price it must be sold for? If so what about your car, would you want some government bureaucrat telling you that you must use (drive) your car to work daily or sell it at a price set by the government? Because that analogy seems like what you are suggesting.
So hypothetically you spends a few hundred million dollars inventing something. (Say a new environmentally friendly battery the size of an existing car battery, but it can power a electric car for 400+ miles per charge and recharge in just minutes.) You have invented it, and you patent it. (clock is ticking) Well it wasn't quite bug free. The patent is valid, but you still need to fix some issues (it tends to catch fire). You know this is not an insurmountable problem and that it can be fixed, but it will takes another several months and more testing. (tick, tick the clock is ticking) Now it is all working and you miraculously have no problem setting up a manufacturing and distribution system. But it could still easily be at least 6 months to 1 year after you filed for you patent before you produce you first production battery. Now you are in production and ready to sell batteries to the car makers. Well it cost you $50 in materials, labor and overhead per battery to make each one. So you are going to sell them for $1000 each. You need to recoup your hundreds of millions of dollars in investment. About 5 million cars are sold each year, but only 5% of those will be electric. So if you sell all of them for $1000 each you should make about 240 million per year, and almost 1 billion when the patent runs out. But wait. The car companies realize that the build process is actually easy and cheep, and the battery only cost $1000 because you have the patent. So knowing they can't get a car to market with this new battery for another model year anyway, and that you patent will expire in about 3 years after that, most just decide to wait until your patent expires and make their own batteries for about $50 each.
Congratulations you just lost you shirt and your money. One of the reasons patent last as long as they do, is to prevent people from saying "I'll just wait until the patent expires." 5 years is nothing.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
I beleive you asked me for an example and I gave you one, not hypothetical situation but a real life situation where the technology would benefit thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people, instead of just one company. In return would you care to provide a real life example of a patent that cost so much to develop that it took 21 years to get a return on investment?
Actually I gave an example of my point (Toyota) being sued for using a 15 year old patent that the patent holder refuses to use or sell. So what is your example of a patent that has taken 20years to pay off?
I'm not in patent law, so no I do not have my own example handy.
However your example is hardly an example in your favor. Rather it is an example in mine. Paice patented a hybrid electric power train. They are now trying to find someone with the money and capability to make and use it, to sell its patent rights.
From your article: -- “They appear to be one of those companies that exists solely to do R&D on new technologies, come up with something and then sell or lease the rights to companies interested in building the technology.”
I could come up with the next great idea, whatever that is, but I don't have the money, knowledge, or ability to implement it. Does that mean I lose my rights to that "next great idea"? No, I can try to sell it to someone who can implement it. But that could take quite I while to do.
So Paice has 20 years in which to make money on their idea. They are not stopping Toyota from using their idea, just saying you need to pay us to use it.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Really? So if you spend years of your life and your life savings doing all the work of inventing, testing, and developing some wonderful new technology that you are going to be able to sell and live off of, you would not have a problem with me (say I'm Wal-Mart or GE) just coming along a taking that idea for free and making all the profits? I mean I'm not going to buy the idea from you since you can't patent it. And you may not have the finical resources to market and/or produce it.
Without patents there would be no development and innovation as there would be no motive or profit in it.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
I think it worked fairly well when there were few patents applied for and they were distinct inventions. Now patents are used primarily to protect existing technology from new advances by locking-up new ideas and preventing others from using them. With the extension of the exclusive use and other techniques of extending patent protection, our economy is suffering from a lack of capability to put new ideas into action. As a society, we should care less about your ability to protect your idea, than we do about everybody else's ability to generate progress. The concept that somebody can "own" an idea is archaic and does not serve a good social purpose.
Please explain how or why someone is going to spend their time and money doing research and development (which can cost millions of dollars depending on what you are developing) and then let me and everyone else use their work and idea for free.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
There are many reasons. One is they have a working business model they do not wish to disturb while they can still wring dollars from it. But having the patent prevents competitors, at least for a while (12 years?) from developing a better product.
I agree. I think the pace of technical development seems to always be increasing. So why would we want to lock in patent protection for ever longer periods, as has been done? Patents allow companies to not develop products while hoping to live off of royalties. We'll reach a point where the products are way behind in technology because patents are preventing new ideas from getting to market. I'd say that situation is quite present now in the hybrid auto market, as an example.
[2 points]2 years ago by elwyattReplyEdited 2 years ago by elwyatt
Talk to the international community. Patents where extended to comply with Paris Convention, which set patents life at 21 years.
But again, if you are potentially investing hundreds of millions of dollars on something, you need time to recoup that investment. Set the time too short and you have the same effect as not having a patent.
There is plenty of imperative to invent even without the goal of patent royalties. The vast majority of inventions and research are done without patents ever being filed. You had an idea; well so do they. They might be the same idea, but if so, I see no reason why you should 'own' it just because you documented it first. A world without patents allows progress to proceed without having to watch your back all the time. Sony/Apple will still develop new products, so they can sell them.
It cost money to do R&D. Companies are not hobbyists. They don't do it for fun, they do it for money. If they can't recoup their money, they simply will not do it.
Without patents the companies that DO NOT invent are at an advantage. It is cheaper for them to just take someone else's work, and make a product. Their only cost would be the actual cost of production. The company that invents would have the same cost of production, but also all the costs of inventing it. Granted someone would pretty much be forced by necessity (necessity being the mother of invention) to invent something every once in a while. But they would lose money as everyone else you just copy it.
[2 points]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
United States
I guess that the question here is who is going to determin "fair use".
Just about any time you reform law its the government.
I agree patent law is due for a serious overhaul!
How anti-capitalist.
I disagree. There have been several instances lately that I can think of where patent lawsuits are stiffing new progressive business ideas. If you hold a patent on something and you are not using that patent, just sitting on it so someone else can not use it, then there needs to be a provision of the law that allows another company to use your patent and pay you a royalty. How they would determine what that royalty would be I cant really say but surely there has to be a way.
Why is that jondough? Are you saying that if I invent something it doesn't belong to me, and I can't do whatever the heck I want to with it (including sitting on it)? My, my... that sounds positively socialist! In fact, that was the basic plot line of "Atlas Shrugged." ;o)
You're going to have to tear up your Glenn Beck fan club membership card if you keep this up.
We were extended a patent on a combination of drugs that are FDA approved and patented with other companies, very normal, but it's the combo, we discovered, that makes it wonderful for people hooked on pain-killers to get off of them. They took it from us shortly after and now we are having to hire patent lawyers to fight for it. This is very normal to create drugs using other co. drugs.
You may (or may not) have misunderstood what side I am on. In this case I would be on your side of the argument for the reason that you came up with the idea and you plan on using it. But if you had come up with the patent just to keep the idea from being used, then I would be for someone else being able to take over that patent and maybe pay you a small royalty or something.
Yeah, I know. Industries that will suffer if the idea were to become "public" have bought others patents so that they can prevent the public from gaining access to it. It's sad but it's not my call.
I agree that aspects of patent law are in need of an update. But my question is what is "fair use" in this context? "fair use" is defined in copyright law, but that doesn't really apply, nor make sense, to patent laws. So what is (or would be) "fair use" in patent law.
Also what is a "new technology" that has "already been developed"? Seems like it is either new technology, or it is already developed technology. Seems vague and a bit confusing.
I agree. jondough needs to provide an example.
http://www.zoomilife.com/2009/09/07/toyota-getting-sued-over-hybrid-patent-again/
This is just one example (since plawler needs examples of everything). It may not be the best example that a person could come up with but it is a good one.
"New technology" in the fact that it is not your standard everyday drive train used in the majority of automobiles, but it has been invented and patented and could be used so it has "already been developed".
By "fair use" I did not mean it in the same sense as copyright law. I mean that if a company (in this case Paice) has patented a technology (over 10 years ago) and has still made no effort to market and use this technology, then other companies could use it and pay a small royalty of some kind (such as the $25 per car that the courts ordered in the first lawsuit).
There are all sorts of technologies that are patented but not being used that could benefit not only the companies that can develop them into products but possibly society as a whole (such as hybrid cars?) Im not advocating that these patents be given away or disregarded, but that they be allowed to be used and the patent holder get some money as well.
This is not uncommon for patents on pharmaceuticals and chemicals, that is where generic brands come from.
Your example is what patent law is for and is good. Person A came up with the idea and patented it. They may not have the money and resources to implement it themselves. They can sell the rights to others to use. Or if, for example, there are only two known ways to do something, they can patent both (assuming they came up with both methods) and only use one. The patent on the other serves the same purpose as the first.
They can set the price they want to sell it for, you can’t say I think it worth $25/car give it to me for that, they get to decide that. If they want $10,000 per car you don’t use their patented process and do something else, and they don’t make any money.
A patent give a person (company) a limited time to make money on the discovery and/or development of a process before it become available to the public. Toyota needs to pay this company to use the process they came up with or wait until their patent expires.
I see no problem with the example give.
Yes, I understand what a patent is for, but I think that with the example given, this company has held this patent for over 10 years and not produced one product. Toyota should pay, a nominal fee (and that is really the hard part, determining a fair fee) and using the idea since the company with the patent is not using it. Again, that is just one example that I have come across....there are literally thousands of examples similar to this one.
I have heard rumor that GM owns a lot of hybrid patents, but doesn't really use them (for whatever reason) but wont sell or allow other car makers to use them either....I don't have facts on that its just a rumor, but still, there are plenty of other examples out there.
"this company has held this patent... and not produced one product." -- The fact they have not produced any thing is irrelevant.
"Toyota should pay, a nominal fee (and that is really the hard part, determining a fair fee) and using the idea since the company with the patent is not using it." -- Toyota can do just that. They pick up the phone call the other company and say "how much do you want for a license to use your patent?" The other company will tell Toyota how much they want and Toyota can write them a check if they find the price acceptable. If not they can move on and/or wait.
"this company has held this patent for over 10 years" -- If they don't like the price the company wants, they can wait another 10 years and the patent will expire and anyone can do anything they want with it. Patents are only good for 20 years; you just seem to want to set that to a lower time frame. (Well technically patents are good for up to 21 years if done properly in accordance with the Paris Convention, but most US patents are just 20 years.)
"The fact they have not produced any thing is irrelevant." -- It may be irrelevant to you but not to me. I don't think certain technologies should be forced to sit on a shelf for 20 years. That is why I would like to see modification to the patent law.
"Toyota can do just that. They pick up the phone call the other company and say "how much do you want for a license to use your patent?" The other company will tell Toyota how much they want and Toyota can write them a check if they find the price acceptable. If not they can move on and/or wait." -- I understand that is the current law...again, that is why I think the law needs to be amended.
"That is why I would like to see modification to the patent law." -- modified to what degree and end? Sorter term? What do you think is an appropriate time?
“I understand that is the current law...again, that is why I think the law needs to be amended.” -- Again amended to what? There is a method in the current law to us the patent just as you want, by paying the holder of the patent so I’m not sure what you want to change. Do you want the person who is buying to also be the one who sets the sales price? Well if that is the case, I’d just want to pay $0.0001 to use the patent. Do you want some government bureaucrat telling everyone what price it must be sold for? If so what about your car, would you want some government bureaucrat telling you that you must use (drive) your car to work daily or sell it at a price set by the government? Because that analogy seems like what you are suggesting.
I would say that 5 years should be plenty of time to recupe your investment on a patent. That would be the goal I would shoot for personally.
Not so much a government bureaucrat but maybe some type of arbitrator.....
5 years?
So hypothetically you spends a few hundred million dollars inventing something. (Say a new environmentally friendly battery the size of an existing car battery, but it can power a electric car for 400+ miles per charge and recharge in just minutes.) You have invented it, and you patent it. (clock is ticking) Well it wasn't quite bug free. The patent is valid, but you still need to fix some issues (it tends to catch fire). You know this is not an insurmountable problem and that it can be fixed, but it will takes another several months and more testing. (tick, tick the clock is ticking) Now it is all working and you miraculously have no problem setting up a manufacturing and distribution system. But it could still easily be at least 6 months to 1 year after you filed for you patent before you produce you first production battery. Now you are in production and ready to sell batteries to the car makers. Well it cost you $50 in materials, labor and overhead per battery to make each one. So you are going to sell them for $1000 each. You need to recoup your hundreds of millions of dollars in investment. About 5 million cars are sold each year, but only 5% of those will be electric. So if you sell all of them for $1000 each you should make about 240 million per year, and almost 1 billion when the patent runs out. But wait. The car companies realize that the build process is actually easy and cheep, and the battery only cost $1000 because you have the patent. So knowing they can't get a car to market with this new battery for another model year anyway, and that you patent will expire in about 3 years after that, most just decide to wait until your patent expires and make their own batteries for about $50 each.
Congratulations you just lost you shirt and your money. One of the reasons patent last as long as they do, is to prevent people from saying "I'll just wait until the patent expires." 5 years is nothing.
I beleive you asked me for an example and I gave you one, not hypothetical situation but a real life situation where the technology would benefit thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people, instead of just one company. In return would you care to provide a real life example of a patent that cost so much to develop that it took 21 years to get a return on investment?
You didn't give an example. You gave your opinion on what you think the time limit should be.
Actually I gave an example of my point (Toyota) being sued for using a 15 year old patent that the patent holder refuses to use or sell. So what is your example of a patent that has taken 20years to pay off?
I'm not in patent law, so no I do not have my own example handy.
However your example is hardly an example in your favor. Rather it is an example in mine. Paice patented a hybrid electric power train. They are now trying to find someone with the money and capability to make and use it, to sell its patent rights.
From your article: -- “They appear to be one of those companies that exists solely to do R&D on new technologies, come up with something and then sell or lease the rights to companies interested in building the technology.”
I could come up with the next great idea, whatever that is, but I don't have the money, knowledge, or ability to implement it. Does that mean I lose my rights to that "next great idea"? No, I can try to sell it to someone who can implement it. But that could take quite I while to do.
So Paice has 20 years in which to make money on their idea. They are not stopping Toyota from using their idea, just saying you need to pay us to use it.
Patents should be abolished, period. They stifle the development of new ideas and products much more than they help, and society suffers as a result.
Really? So if you spend years of your life and your life savings doing all the work of inventing, testing, and developing some wonderful new technology that you are going to be able to sell and live off of, you would not have a problem with me (say I'm Wal-Mart or GE) just coming along a taking that idea for free and making all the profits? I mean I'm not going to buy the idea from you since you can't patent it. And you may not have the finical resources to market and/or produce it.
Without patents there would be no development and innovation as there would be no motive or profit in it.
I think it worked fairly well when there were few patents applied for and they were distinct inventions. Now patents are used primarily to protect existing technology from new advances by locking-up new ideas and preventing others from using them. With the extension of the exclusive use and other techniques of extending patent protection, our economy is suffering from a lack of capability to put new ideas into action. As a society, we should care less about your ability to protect your idea, than we do about everybody else's ability to generate progress. The concept that somebody can "own" an idea is archaic and does not serve a good social purpose.
Please explain how or why someone is going to spend their time and money doing research and development (which can cost millions of dollars depending on what you are developing) and then let me and everyone else use their work and idea for free.
Why do people spend millions of dollars to invent something and then refuse to use it or let anyone else use it?
There are many reasons. One is they have a working business model they do not wish to disturb while they can still wring dollars from it. But having the patent prevents competitors, at least for a while (12 years?) from developing a better product.
for 20 years under the current system?? Thats just too long....
I agree. I think the pace of technical development seems to always be increasing. So why would we want to lock in patent protection for ever longer periods, as has been done? Patents allow companies to not develop products while hoping to live off of royalties. We'll reach a point where the products are way behind in technology because patents are preventing new ideas from getting to market. I'd say that situation is quite present now in the hybrid auto market, as an example.
Talk to the international community. Patents where extended to comply with Paris Convention, which set patents life at 21 years.
But again, if you are potentially investing hundreds of millions of dollars on something, you need time to recoup that investment. Set the time too short and you have the same effect as not having a patent.
There is plenty of imperative to invent even without the goal of patent royalties. The vast majority of inventions and research are done without patents ever being filed. You had an idea; well so do they. They might be the same idea, but if so, I see no reason why you should 'own' it just because you documented it first. A world without patents allows progress to proceed without having to watch your back all the time. Sony/Apple will still develop new products, so they can sell them.
You sir are living in a fantasy world.
It cost money to do R&D. Companies are not hobbyists. They don't do it for fun, they do it for money. If they can't recoup their money, they simply will not do it.
Without patents the companies that DO NOT invent are at an advantage. It is cheaper for them to just take someone else's work, and make a product. Their only cost would be the actual cost of production. The company that invents would have the same cost of production, but also all the costs of inventing it. Granted someone would pretty much be forced by necessity (necessity being the mother of invention) to invent something every once in a while. But they would lose money as everyone else you just copy it.
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply