If you say "engine means for creating torque" in your patent claim, when you try to enforce your claim the court will look at the actual engine you disclosed in your patent's specification. You can't disclose a crank and flywheel and then assert it against sun and planet.

But if you call it an "engine module configured to provide torque" courts will let you assert that claim against pretty much anything vaguely like an engine that provides torque.

Under this 2015 case, the patent owner gets less money if people just use their patent to comply with the standard, and not because it's a better way of doing something.

In terms of "good to society" it's hard to say what expiration date is the optimal one at maximizing innovation over all possible futures. I think it's probably greater then 0, but below 100 years.

the article convenietly leaves out the pricing rules being disputed.

remember that there is already regulations for std patents to be priced reasonably and non discrimatory.

what apple is hunting here, is a discount. nothing else.

Why should Apple pay Qualcomm more for a radio in a 128GB iPhone than a 32GB iPhone?

At the heart is the argument that only part of the iPhone value is wireless and putting a tax on the whole is not reasonable. Imagine the iPhone software and chip embedded into a car. Would it be reasonable for the car manufacturer to pay the same percentage to Qualcomm as Apple? Where do you draw the line?

There is a huge amount of innovation in the iPhone: Mechanical engineering, materials, sensors, camera, screen and software. None have anything to do with Qualcomm.

The value Qualcomm adds is equivalent to a very fast portable, wireless hotspot. A great thing to have and worth paying for.

For instance, the Romans had toys that used steam, but the technology never made the leap to a productive use in the form of steam engines. One theory is that the vast use of slave labor in Rome meant that there was no economic impetus for the discovery of labor saving technologies. By the time the market was right for labor saving technology the basic technology used in the toy had largely been forgotten.

Another example is metallurgy in pre-Columbian America. To our knowledge, the Native Americans in North America never developed the technology to melt, smelt, cast or alloy metals. This was despite the fact that bronze alloys had been in use in the old world for over 6000 years by the time Columbus landed on the New World, and iron smelting had been in use for nearly 2500 years.

Innovation and invention do not exist in a vacuum. They are closely tied to the time and place where they occurred. So, yes, it would be entirely possible that electricity never would have existed if patent law was different 200+ years ago.

Now ask yourself whether that outcome would have changed your conclusion today. If not--that is, if you can imagine finding enough material in the remaining 10% (without knowing about the missing 90%) to point out as proof that patents didn't limit innovation--then try extrapolating that out to imagine the difference between the dribble of inventions we saw in the 20th century vs. what could have been.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

However, since you directed me to run a thought experiment I must point out that you did not complete the task I just assigned you. I told you to make up a lie that a broad and powerful patent regime is the reason that 1) the ancient Romans did not have an industrial revolution and 2) led to their downfall. I directed you to blame a broad patent system on this, however you did not do so.

Let me set this aside and look at the task you assigned.

You directed me to imagine that in the past century 90% of useful inventions and overall progress were prevented by patents. That is, you directed me to run a thought experiment where the patent system does not exist from the twentieth century, and you directed me to interpret the conclusion that under such a scenario as of 2017 there are 10n useful inventions, or the overall level of innovation or utility is 10n, where the current level is only n.

Okay, let me write this state of affairs descriptively:

-> From the Enlightenment onward, science and rational study took a front row in society. The Monarchy instituted a system of patents meant in part to support inventors and inventions. Progress accelerated until 1900. This saw the creation of the steam engine, industrial combustion, electricity, and many important inventions. Before we changed history to abolish all patents, the Wright brothers around this time were bicycle mechanics who relied on patents to justify their investment in mechanics. Prior to rewriting history, here is a description of the Wright brothers (how things actually happened):

"The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control, which enabled the pilot to steer the aircraft effectively and to maintain its equilibrium.[4][5][6][7] This method became and remains standard on fixed-wing aircraft of all kinds.[8][9] From the beginning of their aeronautical work, the Wright brothers focused on developing a reliable method of pilot control as the key to solving 'the flying problem'. This approach differed significantly from other experimenters of the time who put more emphasis on developing powerful engines.[10] Using a small homebuilt wind tunnel, the Wrights also collected more accurate data than any before, enabling them to design and build wings and propellers that were more efficient than any before.[11][12] Their first U.S. patent, 821,393, did not claim invention of a flying machine, but rather, the invention of a system of aerodynamic control that manipulated a flying machine's surfaces"

As you can see, they invested huge amounts of time and equipment into a literal wind tunnel. Why? Because they were attempting to bring patentable inventions to a broad audience.

You ask me to imagine that this is n. But now we abolish all patents in 1900. We must now imagine that the Wright brothers contribute 10n to the development, instead of n, in the total absence of all patent laws, which was a primary motivation for their research.

How can we explain that they invest resources when we know that a primary actual reason for this huge investment of resources, was the patent regime?

Why didn't the ancient Romans build wind tunnels? Why weren't wind tunnels built in parts of the world that did not have a strong patent regime?

You ask me to imagine that for every n that was invented under the present regime, if we had abolished it, 10n would have been invented.

But we have very strong historical evidence to the contrary: namely the fact that this was NOT being done.

Leonardo Da Vinci was an inventor. WHy did he not build a studio that included strong mechanical investment of the kind that the patent regime directly caused the Wright brothers to invest in?

If there is 10x as much invention under our alternate history without a patent regime -- then where is this investment in innovation in Florence under the Renaissance?

You ask me to ASSUME that there is ten times as much innovation, but doing so causes me to have to assume something that is contrary to every historical example.

So the situation you ask me to explore is extremely contrafactual.

But we can examine whether the innovation is happening as you suggest - at ten times the pace.

We are actually able to find areas that patent law happens not to cover -- it could cover it, but it does not. It is not patentable to discover something that exists in nature. So, you posit that WITHOUT patent law, there is TEN TIMES as much innovation. But are there ten times as many herbal inventions that are nnot patentable, as artificial inventions which are subject to patent?

Here is a cure for Melaria based on this approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou

In this case she literally followed a recipe that had been written down. ABSENT PATENTS, AN ANCIENT CHINESE RECIPE THAT HAD BEEN FULLY WRITTEN DOWN WAS BARELY EXPLORED. That is how little incentive there is to explore things without patents.

Let me put this in terms that are more salient. Suppose that there was a book that showed how anyone can live to 120. But nobody opens that book. Whereas hundreds of thousands of researchers are spending billions of dollars on different books - which are subject to patents.

This is a case where melaria was killing literally - no exaggeration - millions of people. Absent patents, so little research wsa done that literal recipes that had already been written down were not followed.

So you have a chance to see precisely the effect that you claim. It simply does not work as you ask me to presuppose.

Do you not like my example of herbal medicines? Pick something else that is not subject to patents -- perhaps certain parts of mathematics. Compare the innovation there with innovation in similar parts -- applied software -- that are covered.

You ask me to presume that there is ten times as much innovation in the pure mathematics which is (by virtue of the patent system) not subject to patents -- but it is simply false. It is not true. You make a prediction, that there will be ten times as much innovation everywhere that by happenstance happens not to be covered by patents -- but it is simply not true.

My reply to you isn't PERFECT because it's not a controlled experiment. It could be that pure math is inherently less useful than applied cryptography; it could be that herbal medicines are inherently less efficacious than chemical analogs. Still, we can turn this happenstance into a very rigorous experiment:

Break patent law down into every field that it covers. There may be 200 of them. Then, randomly totally annul all patent coverage in a certain number of them, such as five of them.

Your prediction is that those five fields will explode. Or is 5 not enough? Imagine a random 100 are lifted from patent coverage, all patent protection disappears in a randomly chosen 100 fields whereas patent coverage continues in the remaining 100.

You ask me to suppose that innovation will blossom and explode in the 100 that are no longer covered by patents.

Through what mechanism?

We do, in fact, run this experiment:

From time to time the courts ADD something to PATENT PROTECTION simply to help promote innovation in that field. (This is the reason some people's genes may be patented. I consider that outrageous - I disagree with it - but the reasoning is that this will enable companies to spend money investigating genes. This is correct). When the courts take something non-patentable, such as people's actual genes, and allow patents of innovative research therein, what ACTUALLY happens is that innovation explodes in that sector.

This is an actual effect that we see. It is the exact literal opposite effect from what you predict.

So your predictions in this thought experiment have been falsified. History runs counter to what you predict starting in 1900 without a patent regime. We nearly have controlled experiments. If we did have controlled experiments they would further refute your claims.

So you are simply wrong in every way, including when you asked me to assume that you right.

And you still have not done my task, which is to invent some lie that explains why the patent regime is what stifled Roman innovation, prevvented their having an industrial revolution and, optionally, led to their downfall.

I think by thinking through very rigorously, the very thought experiment you suggested (which is rigorous enough) you will find that in this case I am correct and you had been incorrect. I hope you are now on my side and also correct.

thanks for the discussion.

The Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics and had access to an enormous range of vehicle and propulsion-related technology which was mostly developed over the century prior to their invention of the airplane. Notably, they also had access to gasoline-powered internal combustion engines.

While it's plausible to argue that maybe the Wright brothers (or other important inventors) couldn't have afforded to dedicate the resources that they did to their invention and engineering efforts without the possibility of rewards from a patent's exclusivity, it's implausible to suggest that this is the most salient difference between inventors in different millennia. For example, the inventors in Leonardo's time or in ancient Rome didn't have internal combustion engines, or many other things that would actually make flying machines (or wind tunnels!) function usefully.

Indeed, a lot of the discussion we hear nowadays about the ability to build new kinds of flying machines, like flying cars or electric planes, relates to the problem of energy density in different kinds of fuels and power systems. These have seen a lot of improvement. You can perhaps credit the patent system for much of that improvement because it helped people raise money to spend on experimentation. But in any case, people in earlier millennia couldn't have just skipped over the need to have all of these other technologies available in order to make flying machines work.

(In fact, Leonardo devised some ideas for flying machines with people in recent times have gotten to work, but power and energy density, not aerodynamics, are still the obstacles to making these machines fly high and long.)

They literally explored flight purely because it was patentable. Period. If it hadn't been, they would not have played in that field.

see this thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7613119

Regarding the rest of your response, okay, I will grant you that asking for cross-cultural comparisons across millennia is problematic. So you simply must think through very rigorously even the thought experiments you suggested. Thanks for the discussion.

(/s - sorry. your example is a great example of patents working exactly and precisely like they should. I have a cheap and perfect laser in my mouse next to me right now, that's perfect and great and cost its manufacturer pennies. couldn't have picked a worse example.)

I am not sure that's working as intended in any way shape or form, considering the invention was "Gould's name for the device was first introduced to the public in a conference presentation in 1959"

>it's easy for a cluster of bad patents to block progress indefinitely

you meant like from 1959 to 1987. Sure is indefinitely. Imagine, if the world had ENDED in 1988 or 1989, then the world never would have gotten a patent-free laser.

/s - nothing else to reply to you. get some perspective before throwing words like indefinitely around. I remember when I was 12 I thought like 4 years ago was an eternity ago, I poo-poo'd books published more than 2 or at the most 3 years ago and I thought everything was instantly out of date.

turns out societies actually operate on a different timescale from 12 year-olds.

but otherwise everything you wrote makes sense. and if the world were to end in the next 24 months, then a lot of patent-encumbered technologies simply will NEVER be brought to market by certain companies, due to patents and patents alone.

I absolutely do believe that. The only thing is that I plan on the world existing longer than this time-frame - but if not, you're totally right and a lot of technology is being held back. only time will tell which of us is right.

So 1979 + 20 = 1999 - 1959 = 40 years which is twice the nominal 20 year patent terms.

Critically the original patent was overturned based on a private notebook from 1957. So, the public gained NOTHING from these patents because someone else had already published and others where actually creating the product and bringing it to market, but no based on a notebook which nobody saw suddenly the world changes.

I do benefit from having a precision component in my mouse that cost its manufacturer pennies. Which is the end game of the patent process.

So it's just not a great example. Overturned or not, the public has come out very strongly ahead.

Sketches in notebooks don't help me. Inventors going through the patent process do.

It's that simple.

Note: We changed to a first to file in part to avoid this issue. But, now someone else can publish or even sell something, then after reading it you can submit a patent using their idea which is arguably far worse.