How to Fix the Patent System

Compartir
Insertar
  • Publicado el 30 nov 2018
  • First 200 get 20% annual premium membership of Brilliant: brilliant.org/Polymatter
    Patreon: patreon.com/polymatter
    Twitter: polymatters
    Pins & T-Shirts: standard.tv/collections/polymatter
    Reddit: reddit.com/r/PolyMatter
    Discord: discord.gg/polymatter
    The patent system is broken but not unfixable. Here’s a possible solution.
    This includes a paid sponsored promotion which had no part in the writing, editing, or production of the rest of the video.
    Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com
    Full list of sources: pastebin.com/a845parX

Comentarios • 969

  • Nicholas Pipitone
    Nicholas Pipitone Hace 22 minutos

    What's horrible is that the $5k-$10k fees actively block real inventors. Like no one can realistically make a company unless they're like upper 5-10% of wealth if they have to plop down that much money on something that might not even be profitable at all.

  • Etai Shachar
    Etai Shachar Hace 2 días

    3:07 was definitely a Martin Shkreli reference :)

  • Nicholas Leclerc
    Nicholas Leclerc Hace 2 días

    1:58
    Lol !

  • Xen Xander
    Xen Xander Hace 4 días

    4:00
    even with copycats..
    Hell yes, I'd totally by the next pear 7, or the newest pineapple pro! Do it!
    I'd even settle for the discount 'strawberry six' if it had the same functionality as the newest grape eight!
    Why not?!

  • Mario Stinger
    Mario Stinger Hace 7 días

    Easy, max 5 years. And I own 25

  • Arihant Sinha
    Arihant Sinha Hace 10 días

    A better solution is Royalty payments but not a outright patent monopoly. This will improve quality of service provided by patent as there would be competition of the service providers all paying royalties to the same company. The royalty amount could also be capped after which it will lose patent.
    Different Rules for Different Sectors.
    The patent laws must be different for different sectors like IT or pharma. The time span of royalty in Pharma could also be longer than the one in IT. The patent cap could also be different for different sectors.

    Small company Freed from Expensive Cases
    The smaller companies can start using the patent of the go and pay royalty first without unnecessary and costly court cases.which almost stop Ford from internationalising the Automobile industry. Tesla was put out of business by Morgan Chase because of expensive cases again.

    Patents only for Groundbreaking innovation
    No patents for incremental innovation and stupid things like "buy now" patent. Courts must be allowed to reject patent for "stupid" things no ground for lack of ENOUGH innovation for a royalty payment.

  • 734 Games
    734 Games Hace 11 días

    Abolish!

  • Himanshu Gupta
    Himanshu Gupta Hace 14 días

    The competitors should pay a fixed incentive to the company that invented it if they want to use their technology. In this way it doesn't matter where the competition goes the inventor would always be making money with it's own product as well as the competitors incentive. Also due to competition prices will become less

  • Skin4free - Aksina
    Skin4free - Aksina Hace 19 días

    Omfg??
    It's a lie, you compare it to teknologi... But patent are good in medicine since making one can easy cost multi billion dollars... So make sense they NEED patent to post that kind of money in

  • Yeet ed
    Yeet ed Hace 21 un día

    The first minute of this video is basically explaining why no one takes just one piece of candy on Halloween

  • Gregory House
    Gregory House Hace 22 días

    why use tax to pay! just make it so that any future company (after the inventor) pays to use it! simple.

  • Eldaneuron
    Eldaneuron Hace 22 días

    5:03 twice fan?

  • Louie Figgy
    Louie Figgy Hace 26 días

    Your solution has a big flaw. Almost all patents are awarded to ideas that have no monetary value. They are just clever but useless inventions. The value of the invention is determine by how much people will pay for it.

  • Magnus Norgren
    Magnus Norgren Hace 29 días

    I think it's a bit naive to say that Lego doesn't benefit from patents anymore. Firstly, them being first to market and owning the market segment for a large amount of time made them time to build a strong brand. When you see toybricks today, at least of quality, you think Lego. It doesn't matter if someone sells the same product! Secondly, they still own a lot of patents and still seem to file new ones www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&tbm=pts&q=inassignee:%22Lego+A/S%22&biw=412&bih=775&dpr=2.63 . Giving out a prize is an interesting idea, but for it to be worthwhile for the inventions or inventive ideas we truly want to be published, we better be prepared to give out a great deal of money, meaning that we likely also will have to hand out a lot of money to inventions that wouldn't really turn out to be that significant as it is really hard to say which ones are of more of interest to the public.
    Let's play with the idea that there are 300 000 granted us patents each year, and that you have to give out perhaps at least 100 000$ for anyone to give up their important idea (however, for the best inventions which are hard to copy, this will not be enough by far of course), this already generates 300 000 000 000$ of prize money you need to come up with in taxes, not counting the increase this will cause in applications, and further, perhaps grants.
    And of course you also have the issue of international trade and does it really work to change the system if you don't do it globally?
    Just some thoughts from a patent examiner.

  • thomas mathews
    thomas mathews Hace un mes

    Does this really fix the problem?
    It was skipped over in the video but the central problem here is how much is the discovery worth? There is no way for market forces to determine this in the prize example, the prize is just the best guess of someone in government. That guess will be wrong and there is no way you could determine a bureaucratic process for doing so that wouldn't miss edge cases and end up with different bits of R&D becoming nonviable. It would also take even more time because it would be a massive opportunity for corruption, preventing that corruption adds cost and more reviews/appeals (and associated lawyer fees).
    Many other comments point of the issue of who pays as well. There is no good answer to that. Do we want the government awarding prizes to alcohol, tobacco or fossil fuel inventions? New website designs that keep gamblers sucked in for longer? If not do we cease all development in certain areas?
    The pricing problem is made worse when you consider that the inventor won't always know exactly how profitable their research will be, so they can't make a sound economic decision.
    Sum all those up and you have a command economy. The government would have to interfere in any economic sector capable of innovation (all of them) and decide how economically valuable every invention was. That is unlikely to end well.

  • The Tito Truth Totem
    The Tito Truth Totem Hace un mes

    Complement to the solution. Give public credit with the display info of the original idea for and also the money as well.

  • Logical Gaming EM
    Logical Gaming EM Hace un mes

    How about no patents

  • Mohammed Shaker
    Mohammed Shaker Hace un mes

    IP is stupid. There is no original thought everything is inspired by many many other things.

  • VineFynn
    VineFynn Hace un mes

    I was expecting a more intelligent proposal. At least the beneficiaries of a product are the only ones who have to bear the cost of its patent under the current system.

  • first last
    first last Hace un mes

    . I don't see this working as written. Coming to an agreement on what should be rewarded for and what that reward should be on a regular bases, I don't see a solution to either of those. One possibility is the government having the option to buy real innovation from companies, especially drugs, whether they want to or not, this one time cost could be a rough approximation if costs (including those of failures) and with some profit put in, or something.
    Price caps with consideration of costs is another possibility, built in is that a company can't refuse to provide the drug within that price cap or risk facing having their patent taken from them.
    And a must is limiting the terms a patent can be put under along with a review board that has the authority to dismiss patent claims if deemed frivolous (with an option to appeal by those who want to sue)

  • Tara Jerich
    Tara Jerich Hace un mes

    My friend invented the plastic bottles and DuPont took it! Larry Urbani patients 4,071,943 his patient INCLUDING all poly and the like.

  • Francisco JCSA
    Francisco JCSA Hace un mes

    You do know the tragedy of the commons is mostly bullshit and didn't actually apply to the commons, right?

  • Jefferson Estêvam
    Jefferson Estêvam Hace un mes

    This solution sucks my dude.
    I honestly think that just braking these Monopolies by law is much better,to innovation.
    Of course they will get less money for it, but if is for more freedom and innovation we can take the bullet,and adapt to make money in other ways using these ideas.

  • R Jose
    R Jose Hace un mes

    GOD NO. Whatever tax would go to fund it would be regressive AF

  • 05Matz
    05Matz Hace un mes +1

    This is exactly what we should be doing. Bounty/prize systems are so much better than monopoly-based alternatives. There would, of course, be issues in selection and funding, but the current system is really untenable. It's one of the major reasons why, after completing by BSci in Computer Science, I realized I couldn't in good conscience work in the tech industry. Software patents, DRM, and surveillance were all things I hard-line refused to be associated with even indirectly at several degrees of separation, but they were all so near-omnipresent that I had to turn my back on the field as a whole, even though it was the only thing I was ever really good at.

    ...when I was a kid, I wanted to invent things. But as I learned about the patent system, that dream faded quickly. I want to bring new things into the world, not participate in the carving-up of the space of possible technologies into exclusive silos. Most of the purpose of patents these days is either for MAD as mentioned in the video or as minefields sown to actively _prevent_ competitors from exploring a technological direction (whether or not you plan to go there yourselves).

    Even worse, countries like the USA allow even further loopholes on top of the abusiveness of the traditional patent system (There, pharmaceutical patents can be renewed indefinitely by changing a small detail of the drug or its manufacturing process and filing new safety paperwork. Even INSULIN is still under patent there, apparently!).

    EDIT: Alternately (probably with fewer of the negative side effects others brought up in the comments), the modern patent system could be modified in such a way to both absolutely require specificity (like it originally did in the USA, with full blueprints included in the patent application and often a requirement to donate a working prototype or miniature model to a public museum) and to require the patent holder to licence at a certain maximum rate to anybody who asked (making it impossible to hold a patent purely to prevent a technology disruptive to to your business from being invented/commercialized by your competitors)

  • Edward Robinson
    Edward Robinson Hace un mes

    A naive point of view....

  • lykou sar
    lykou sar Hace un mes

    Just no.

  • Mapumpum Mapumza23
    Mapumpum Mapumza23 Hace un mes

    This is true thats why i am struggling to patent my orthopedic medical device.

  • meh
    meh Hace un mes

    Prize system could be a tax incentive. Even then I still would be against it. Software it makes sense but a pharmacy should have the classic monopoly system. It isn’t so motivating to be a first mover unless you allowed temporary monopoly. No taxes on product X for y years. Actually this might be a better idea. Then your always encouraging real innovation than rewarding a cash cow and minor “innovation” in physical products.
    But even then I can see a loophole. For example let’s say we patent water (I don’t know how it works exactly but I get the legal definition) h2o. Let’s make h2oo for example now it’s a different product. This is type of stuff companies do to sell marijuana variance which is much worst than regular.

  • Aurelio Mari Gueco, Jr.

    Once hahaha

  • Rick
    Rick Hace un mes

    What in incredibly naive view of this issue. There's nothing inherently wrong with "patent trolls." The problem lies almost entirely in the lack of quality of issue patents and our lack of a "loser pays" litigation system. Saying we should get rid of "patent trolls" makes about as much sense as saying we should get rid of landlords.

    And handing out government checks to people for inventing things, regardless of whether there is any demand for them, is just inherently idiotic, and a little bit communistic.

  • Tyler Barrett
    Tyler Barrett Hace un mes

    So many inaccuracies in this and faulty logic. For example, Apple revenue is different from Apple profits. Also, they are paying closer to $12,000-$20,000 per patent application. Also, if someone wanted to make a smart phone, they easily could do it without running into patent problems. However, if they want to copy the iPhone, then they will have problems. Isn't that the point? A competitor is more than welcome to come up with their own innovations, or use commonly known technology. Also, his argument that the iPhone is already being copied, but Apple still makes tons of money is innacurate. If that company knocking off the iPhone were allowed to sell it in every country in the world, then it would kill Apple. It's not a matter of having better engineers if you can't protect the inventions made by those better engineers. If the worse engineers are just reverse engineering and copying, then they don't have to be as good as the engineers at Apple. You don't get any benefit of better engineering if you can't protect the results of the better engineering. Anyway, I could go on, but this whole video has soooo many falsehoods.
    With that said, if you ran a system that had each company keep track of expenditures associated with each invention, and they submitted those, then you could probably run a system where each patent was valid for 20 years or until some x% of expenditures were recovered (e.g., 150%). I could see something like that work as a change to the current system. One thing people don't realize is that the patent system is required by the U.S. constitution.

  • 10Z11A
    10Z11A Hace un mes

    I suppose if you were going with a prize based strategy, the prize as it were could just be however much they had put into developing it, including research and and overall man hours plus enough to start production of whatever they had invented. Though since the original intention of copyrights and patents were to help ensure that massive corporations, with immensely greater resources and manufacturing capabilities, didn’t just take the inventions of individuals who despite having taken all of the risk, don’t have the money or resources necessary to compete with said massive corporation who would outperform them without even breaking a sweat. It would likely be a good idea in the case of private individuals who aren’t loaded with resources, to at least allow a few years of protection from having their idea stolen.

  • Laura Weiss
    Laura Weiss Hace un mes

    You left out the factor of governments making money off of filing fees and especially annuity/maintenance fees. So instead of patents being a net money maker, your system would require higher taxes to compensate/motivate innovation.

  • РОГОФОС
    РОГОФОС Hace un mes +1

    Basicly, to end all patents we have to end capitalism.
    Thats it, no other way, you will either run out of money or end up stack in an endless loop of lobbies

  • BadOpinions
    BadOpinions Hace un mes

    Who funds this prize system? Who determines how much each patent is worth? Surely a buy now button wouldn’t reward the same amount as a life saving drug.
    If you’re able to explain these holes, maybe the system has promise but until then, i can’t say i support this

  • VG TTVnoobyYT
    VG TTVnoobyYT Hace 2 meses +1

    skillshare = more patent

  • NPSF3000
    NPSF3000 Hace 2 meses

    A prize system? Wait what? This implies you know what you want to be invented before it's invented.... and it also implies you'll now have companies just 'inveting' things to get paychecks from the government rather than any actual utility. Yeah, time to go back to the drawing board.

  • Thomas Busse
    Thomas Busse Hace 2 meses

    641529738 8069073 670286 0107709 986

  • Thomas Busse
    Thomas Busse Hace 2 meses

    But now we need to sell a policy. Hmm. A Jingle: "Abuse a Patent, Lose a Patent." (c) Thomas Busse 2019

  • Dreamy
    Dreamy Hace 3 meses +3

    5:03 Best thing ever

  • Stu
    Stu Hace 3 meses

    So.... what is your solution?

  • Alex Alexandrov
    Alex Alexandrov Hace 3 meses +1

    For some reason the commons actually survived for a long time without problems the main reason was feudalist mind set not so much profit drive

  • Dabi2K
    Dabi2K Hace 3 meses

    You can't determine the potential utility of an invention before it's ever used or applied, so just giving money to inventors is infeasible. Inventing things isn't hard, inventing something useful to people is.

    Paying inventors with tax money is just simplistic and rushed.

    "Hey look, this invention is really useful to society (trust me it is), so instead of letting you buy a product that uses the invention (or not if you don't find it useful), which means the inventor will make the amount of money that corresponds to the amount people are willing to pay for it, I will forcibly take your money and give it to them, because I have already determined that it's a useful product (not necessarily to you, but to other people in society whom you have never met, nor care about)."

  • Robert Hubbard
    Robert Hubbard Hace 3 meses +1

    I was awarded a patent this year after 7 years and tens of thousands of dollars. If I didn't have this patent, the big tech guys would just steal it and I'd be rolled over. SO I don't agree with the "fix" here.

  • Righty SnipeZ
    Righty SnipeZ Hace 3 meses

    Patents need to be redefined as a boost for achieving something first rather than a cockblock for innovation.
    Like a one year patent to get a headstart in market share.

  • Jeffrey Riddle
    Jeffrey Riddle Hace 3 meses +1

    @3:45: "Trading a MONOPOLY for a product [the company] would make anyway." First: it isn't a monopoly when you know that the EXCLUSIVE right terminates in 20 years from filing. Second: You incorrectly assume that the company "would make it anyway." Where the hell do you get the information from? Do you seriously think that any investor or business creator would ever put up money (and good money at that) to create (from scratch) a product that may or may not sell? Where did you go to school? Did you ever get any education, even a cursory one, in economics? Hell, just look at your own behavior and let me know if you would act that way without compensation. For example, would you ever board a bus that MAY take you to your destination? Never. Now, what about a bus that details how you will get to your destination and at (about) what time you will get there? The "about" in this scenario is what patents do for companies. They hedge their bets so that their competitors can't just take their idea and run away with it to use it as they see fit. This channel is a joke.
    @8:45: "Would Apple stop making i-Phones if they couldn't file patents?" To tell you the truth, the probably wouldn't have gotten into the smartphone business because without patents, they wouldn't have developed their iOS in the first place or the computers for that OS to run on. Why, even if their computer business got off the ground, would they venture into a market that would risk the capital of their current business? Again, a joke channel.

  • Jeffrey Riddle
    Jeffrey Riddle Hace 3 meses +1

    @1:15: Not sharing "leaves little room for innovation." Coming from a patent attorney, you are deadly wrong and just a little over a minute into your junk video you have misinterpreted the advancements we have made in America. In fact, the patent system alone (based on capitalism) is the sole driver of the economic giant that the US is today. Think of all the innovations made in technology. Where were they patented first? It doesn't even matter if the company is foreign to the USA. They still file in the US first and foremost. Also, if you think that there is no room for innovation, let me tell you about the 2000's. Some people thought that there was a limit on the size and amount of data storage for computers. Now? There appears to be no limit due to nanofabrication tecnologies and memristive devices. But, by all means, keep shooting your mouth off on a subject you know nothing about.

  • Mark Grisnich
    Mark Grisnich Hace 3 meses

    You used the Twice logo - I'm dumbfounded, astonished, impressed, and subscribed. Very Nice! 👌

  • SquirtlePWN
    SquirtlePWN Hace 3 meses

    I agree the system needs fixed but cutting a check isn't the way to do it. We shouldn't burden tax payers, who already pay out the butt, with massive checks to every patent troll who writes a nonsensical and vague description of an obvious invention or idea.
    Let's first try making the length of time a patent lasts much shorter, and variable depending on industry. Software patents last 1 year from the day the patent is granted. Chemical formulas last 10 years. Then we also limit patents to very specific descriptions and require a patent applicant to present proof of intent to use, license, or sell the patent to a company that they can prove intends to use it.
    Suing Apple doesn't count as using the patent.

  • Sam Ntiros
    Sam Ntiros Hace 3 meses

    I am a patent attorney. Your proposal is patently absurd. First, patents are promulgated in the Constitution. Second, patents provide economic incentive for innovation. Third, this whole anti-patent sentiment is being pushed by Google, et al, so they can perform further antitrust violations, breach even more privacy interests, suppress to a greater extent even more conservatives, and amass so much control they become the spying arm of the communists (aka, liberals) in this country.
    I can only conclude you work for one of these tech companies or George Soros.
    Go Trump !!!

  • Kevin Slater
    Kevin Slater Hace 4 meses

    I work in patents. You have no clue what you're talking about. You are so ignorant it's painful and your ignorance is being told to the public. There are two reasons we have patents:
    1. To protect the work of the inventor.
    2. To allow the public access to the invention.
    What you recommend will just cause everyone to go back to the days when they kept everything secret. By law every patent is required to explain the best mode for the invention. For the 20 year life of the patent everything in the invention is open to the public. This allows other inventors to improve on your idea to find ways to create their own invention off what you disclosed. Also after the patent ends it allows everyone open access to create your good idea. It also forces inventors to continually improve their invention so that after the 20 year life of the invention they have something new to patent.
    THIS IS WHAT WE GET IN RETURN! This is why the government issues patents. To both protect the inventor and encourage invention!
    Also, it is ILLEGAL to patent software! If your invention does not include a physical real world component your patent will be rejected! It's so obvious you didn't even bother talking with a patent lawyer or clerk. Please do not ever make another video without talking to an expert.

  • John Cooper
    John Cooper Hace 4 meses

    Intellectual property explained by a guy who doesn't know shit about Intellectual property.
    When a person who possess no invention and Ideas trying to steal someone's ideas but the law prevent it, then he blames the law.
    is like someone who is trying to rob a bank but he is scared to doing so because of the law, then he blames the law. and claim, " Well, there is a lot of money in there, why don't we share it".

  • FRANKLIN Z
    FRANKLIN Z Hace 4 meses +2

    It could be made that companies can only extract a licensing fee in percentage from others using the patented invention instead of giving them a full monopoly and power to stop anyone from using it.

  • Shadowfax
    Shadowfax Hace 4 meses

    If pharma needs funding for R&D, then get rid of patents and make patents only for pharma.

  • Anarhistul
    Anarhistul Hace 4 meses

    Have you ever tried making software?!

  • 2Eliminator
    2Eliminator Hace 4 meses

    I paused the video 5:10 to see if anyone else noticed the twice symbol xD

  • Anil Palan
    Anil Palan Hace 4 meses

    You're ignoring the impact of your proposals on small businesses and individual entrepreneurs who do not have the same advantages as big tech. Maybe the ultimate solution is for a massive overhaul of the system so that each type of patent is dealt with differently. For example, individual entrepreneurs should be treated differently from big companies, software patents should be treated different from medical patents, etc. This is a meta-solution.

  • BJ700
    BJ700 Hace 4 meses

    Perhaps the filing fees should be a percentage of the business market capital. i.e. if filed by a company or its parent company, if one exists, as opposed to an individual.

  • Alex
    Alex Hace 4 meses

    Patents will inevitably die off because of unconforming actors like China.