> Temporary monopolies. That's pretty key and you omitted it entirely.
Oh yeah, never mind the government interference - it's only temporary. Never mind that it's still six times longer than the lifetime of the tech involved. Just like how copyrights are 'for a limited time' despite being longer than the average lifespan.
No, what's key here is untrained and uninterested people trying to provide a stimulus to something they don't understand by handing out monopolies on development. If you were to invent an analogy suitably horrible it would involve blind people and hand grenades.
> So inventor X spends 5 years to research and make a cool thing and we grant him $1 million, after which the big corporations copy his idea and make billions. If he could have licensed his idea for the couple of years he had exclusive rights to it that makes it far more worthwhile for the inventor.
And if wishes were unicorns... But back on planet Earth, patents only screw over inventors. Make a mistake in your paperwork and it's worthless. Don't file on time, worthless. Can't afford legal battles, worthless.
That million dollars that you scoff at would certainly be comforting to the 99.986% of independent inventors who don't win patent-bingo though. And teachers, authors, etc, would be eligible for this, unlike now.
> Also, where does the money for these grants come from?
From the dismantled patent system and the court costs that go to adjudicating it. Also, the innovative gains and lessened frictional costs of patents would mean higher profits and thus tax revenue.
Think what we might accomplish if every patent attorney and everyone involved in the industry stopped throwing their life's effort into a productivity black-hole and did even one useful thing with the time, instead of dragging everyone down to provide a relative boost to their team.
> Shouldn't big corporations with billions have to pay to profit wildly from brand new inventions?
Under this scheme they'd pay whatever you wanted to tax them, much like now.
But why should someone have to pay to use an idea just because someone else (might have) had it first? As long as you operate from ridiculous premises like that you'll keep coming up with solutions to non-problems - like patents.
> You're also ignoring the potential for corruption. Honestly, your plan is pretty naïve for this modern world. Instead of throwing out what we have we could try to fix it.
As my system could be expressed in about a page of non-legalese, I'd wager it'd have one ten-millionth the loopholes and cruft the patent system is carrying and would thus a lot less likely to be subverted.
But even if my system were totally corrupted it'd, at absolute worst, reward the wrong people. The patent system, on a good day, brings ruin and destruction to many worthwhile companies and ideas. Engineers are told (on sound legal advice) to never look at patents so the theoretical benefits to society aren't even being provided.
The patent system is already a run-away worst-case scenario.
Oh yeah, never mind the government interference - it's only temporary. Never mind that it's still six times longer than the lifetime of the tech involved. Just like how copyrights are 'for a limited time' despite being longer than the average lifespan.
No, what's key here is untrained and uninterested people trying to provide a stimulus to something they don't understand by handing out monopolies on development. If you were to invent an analogy suitably horrible it would involve blind people and hand grenades.
> So inventor X spends 5 years to research and make a cool thing and we grant him $1 million, after which the big corporations copy his idea and make billions. If he could have licensed his idea for the couple of years he had exclusive rights to it that makes it far more worthwhile for the inventor.
And if wishes were unicorns... But back on planet Earth, patents only screw over inventors. Make a mistake in your paperwork and it's worthless. Don't file on time, worthless. Can't afford legal battles, worthless.
That million dollars that you scoff at would certainly be comforting to the 99.986% of independent inventors who don't win patent-bingo though. And teachers, authors, etc, would be eligible for this, unlike now.
> Also, where does the money for these grants come from?
From the dismantled patent system and the court costs that go to adjudicating it. Also, the innovative gains and lessened frictional costs of patents would mean higher profits and thus tax revenue.
Think what we might accomplish if every patent attorney and everyone involved in the industry stopped throwing their life's effort into a productivity black-hole and did even one useful thing with the time, instead of dragging everyone down to provide a relative boost to their team.
> Shouldn't big corporations with billions have to pay to profit wildly from brand new inventions?
Under this scheme they'd pay whatever you wanted to tax them, much like now.
But why should someone have to pay to use an idea just because someone else (might have) had it first? As long as you operate from ridiculous premises like that you'll keep coming up with solutions to non-problems - like patents.
> You're also ignoring the potential for corruption. Honestly, your plan is pretty naïve for this modern world. Instead of throwing out what we have we could try to fix it.
As my system could be expressed in about a page of non-legalese, I'd wager it'd have one ten-millionth the loopholes and cruft the patent system is carrying and would thus a lot less likely to be subverted.
But even if my system were totally corrupted it'd, at absolute worst, reward the wrong people. The patent system, on a good day, brings ruin and destruction to many worthwhile companies and ideas. Engineers are told (on sound legal advice) to never look at patents so the theoretical benefits to society aren't even being provided.
The patent system is already a run-away worst-case scenario.