Re:Microsoft buys AR headset patents for $100-150M – report
by _delirium on Sunday March 30, 2014 @08:32AM
(#7495981)
In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation.
One tricky issue is also the lead time to market. In the synthesis example, Yamaha came out with a synth within ~2 years of licensing the patent. But in some areas (like medicine) it can be common for it to take 5-10 years for a product to come out, in which case a 5-year patent would be worthless, because it would expire before you can sell anything.
Re:Microsoft buys AR headset patents for $100-150M – report
by lugg on Sunday March 30, 2014 @12:45PM
(#7496747)
Sorry I should have probably continued on, there was a bit of an implication here:
In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation [and how long it takes to reap the return on that investment].
Re:Microsoft buys AR headset patents for $100-150M – report
by anigbrowl on Sunday March 30, 2014 @03:54PM
(#7497641)
I think a generation had stuck because that suits enough people's ideas of what's acceptable while hitting some sort of median in product development and investment returns. Not all inventions even show an immediate profit.
It seems to me that you want it to be less for your convenience, and no other factor.
After the time period the patent / copy rights should be released to the public domain so that everyone may benefit from cheap economy of scale production.
The only reason I could think you feel this way is that it is all you've known. In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation.