So the patent is done after the fact as a "since we're here" approach. Completely different from "we're doing this exclusively to patent it".
We would solve problems and when we had a decent solution we would discuss with our management whether they thought it was noteworthy enough to start the internal patent application process.
The stage of development at which a patent was pursued depended on how much of a breakthrough it was.
Of course you don't design something "exclusively to patent it". It would make no sense -- a patent has no real-world value unless the invention itself has a significant expected ROI.
Lol. 99% of patents are cruft. And I'd be wildly surprised if revenue from patent licensing at the companies you worked at was more than a single digit percentage; mayyyyyybeeee Qualcomm but am too lazy atm. to dive through their financial statements.
Edit: I was off by 2%. See [1].
1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenkey/2017/11/13/in-todays...
Just think for a moment: why would a for-profit company go through the cost of filing a patent application if they didn't expect to obtain a return? Seriously, give it a moment. Those IP lawyers aren't cheap. It works even if only a small percentage of patents provide the lion's share of the revenue.
Look at any settlements between multinationals and see the role that patents play at the negotiation table, for instance.
Also, re. Qualcomm, it actually makes the majority of its revenue from IP licensing, not its sale of chips.
Alternatively, you have patent trolling which gets a return not through direct use of inventions, but through litigation. It's again not so much that the invention has value but that it interferes with value generation in a way that helps profits. Both cases are abuse of the system, and both cases are common. I'm sure those are the kinds of patents that GP referred to as "cruft."
I don't have a problem with suggestions to improve the patent system, such as pedhaps reducing the duration of patents or raising the barrier so that fewer "trivial" patents are granted. But broadly speaking, they do a good job at incentivicing research.
Incorrect. Patents actually have a really crappy ROI.
1: https://thelogic.co/news/universities-earned-just-75-million...
Also, you directly contradict yourself when you state that (1) patents unfairly enrich their holders and (2) patents provide a poor ROI. Which way is it?
Example of what you said earlier -- you keep commenting under two different accounts.
>> [ME] Do patent protections provide them an incentive to do that research?
> [YOU] The main incentive is money, patents are seen as a moat to that
Tons of low-quality, generic software patents are good for extracting small settlements. Especially when the firm wielding said patents can dissolve and reform overnight to dodge negative judgements, there's very little downside.
Separately, funding serious research purely for the purposes of creating high quality patents does not seem like a winning proposition.
Unsure of where creating patents in the normal course of business and using them for M&A leverage or for tit-for-tat deterrence falls on ROI scale.
Wrong again, [1].
1: https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/qcom/metrics/revenue-by-seg...
Also, your data doesn't differentiate between chips and services, so it may well still be the case that IP revenue trumps chip sales.
In my experience that has only been true for the simplest tasks I've been assigned to do. The only examples that come to mind are stuff I did as a junior developer. YMMV, of course.
You either don't understand what 'novel' or 'patentable' means.
Just opening public research wouldn't help us get remuneration from overseas use though unfortunately.
20+ years and counting.
>Do patent protections provide them an incentive to do that research?
The main incentive is money, patents are seen as a moat to that. (But a very weak one, tbh).
>What would be the logical consequence of removing that incentive?
On academia, the effect would be negligible. For some business it would matter, of course, but the immense majority of research is publicly funded anyway.
>I don't think I would have been paid to do all that research if my employers saw less returns for their investment.
As much as I like capitalism, I don't really sympathize with private companies and/or private individuals making money. I would never put their interests over the interests of what's good for society. But to each its own.
The argument of "why would I invest 1B in R&D to develop a drug that can be copied the next day it goes into the market" is valid only on a first, and very shallow, glance. That "1B drug" is actually a several trillion drug which was 99% subsidized by the work of researchers in public institutions. I don't see companies making the exact same argument the other way around, i.e. "hey I just made a PCR, this is a really cool technique, I should find out who invented this and send them money because they deserve to be rich". They're in for the money and if they don't make money, boo hoo, why should I care?
Richard Stallman had it right with the GPL, I wish something similar existed in science. You (not you-you, the generic you) want to be a dick and close down an open ecosystem of innovation where millions have contributed only to buy yourself a condo and some LEGO sets? Go for it! But do it on your own, with a tech tree that belongs to you.
> 20+ years and counting
I took a moment to search for Morales Tapia in Google Patents and could not find any matches. You do have an impressive resume, though.
> I don't see companies making the exact same argument the other way around, i.e. "hey I just made a PCR, this is a really cool technique, I should find out who invented this and send them money because they deserve to be rich".
Is PCR patented, or was it at some point? Companies constantly pay patent royalties for inventions that they want to use, whether the patent is held by an academic institution or not.
If the inventors of PCR wanted to receive royalties from it, patent law was there to help them achieve just that.
I truly don't understand how somebody who works in research isn't familiar with this process.
> You (not you-you, the generic you) want to be a dick and close down an open ecosystem of innovation where millions have contributed only to buy yourself a condo and some LEGO sets?
Ew.
Loud YES! And it only recently came off patent. This was really important for thermalcycler companies such as Bio-rad, which probably wouldn't be the name it is without those patents.
And it is not like patents prevent academics from doing research, either, as there are academic exceptions. In fact, the patent filing process forces the inventors to disclose how their invention works in detail, which makes it easier for academics to build on those ideas if they want to. It's only commercial applications that are really bound by IP licensing agreements, to my knowledge.
If you don't like it I couldn't care less :^).
Ctrl-F "IMO". No matches. Oops.
Ctrl-F "opinion". No matches. Oops.
And I'll leave this conversation here because neither of us is bothering to follow HN commenting guidelines at this point.
Good luck with your research and I hope that if you apply for a patent it will be granted sells well.
As much as I love boxing, I don't really sympathize with athletes smashing each other's heads in.
I really like capitalism but the benefit of some particular private companies and/or private individuals over others is of no real importance for me. I'm (almost) a free market absolutist.
Some regulation is needed to make things fairer, and actually better. But in my preferred mix of capitalism, patents wouldn't be a thing.
Well I've been paid most of my career to do (some pretty fundamental at times) R&D without having to patent the output, so I'm not sure that holds. Of course I'm likely in a different country to you, and mine has very explicit grants and tax benefits for R&D, but even when we were partnering with IBM we didn't patent the work I was doing (for a production homomorphic encryption implementation in 2014).
So I dunno. There are other mechanisms that can arise that still get yourself a job and paid without stifling innovation the way patents currently can do today.
The bigger problem is the flat time limit thats not adjusted per-industry. 20 years is a massive amount of time now today in 2024 in a lot of industries. Eons even.
But I didn't argue that you must file patents in order to do research, or even to be well paid. I argued that the existence of patents incentives research, and that I wouldn't have been paid as much if my work (chip design) didn't lead to patents being granted.
> The bigger problem is the flat time limit thats not adjusted per-industry. 20 years is a massive amount of time now today in 2024 in a lot of industries. Eons even.
I completely agree with that.
Do you think that companies doing research see a benefit in being able to patent their innovations? I.e. do patent protections provide them an incentive to do that research?
What would be the logical consequence of removing that incentive?
From the viewpoint of a lowly engineer with a dozen patents or so, I don't think I would have been paid to do all that research if my employers saw less returns for their investment.