I've been toying around with the idea of an IP-escrow service as an alternative to using the USPTO which has been abused by lawmakers for the past 100 years. Allow someone to register a 'patent' for something like 3 years for a small fee, then increase the fees exponentially for longer periods of time. If someone wants a 70 year patent on something, it's going to cost them a prohibitive amount of money. If the company can no longer pay the upkeep on a patent, it defaults to public domain. This theoretical company could provide the services like putting patent holders in touch with manufacturers (for a referral fee) or build an advanced search tool and charge money for using it.
I see some obvious problems with this idea, but maybe they can be addressed either by the market or by regulation. Dustin Puryear wrote: >How would you stop a company from having trade secrets? I don't understand >that logic. And the fact is that a company will either keep trade secrets or >use patents. I don't think there has been any other solution available in a >capitalistic society, at least not one that has been shown to work. > >I guess what I'm saying here is I'd like to see a realistic alternative >offered. Something that would actually work in a capitalistic (e.g., US) >setting. > >And as far as reverse engineering, you are assuming that "the magnitude >of the problem" is immediately apparent. In my mind, for reverse >engineering to supplant patents you would have to reverse engineer all >innovations, regardless of the economics at the time. Otherwise, you lose >knowledge. You never lose knowledge with patents. > >It's a trade-off. > >Do I think we need patent reform? Sure! But I still believe that patents >solve an important problem: How do we ensure we don't lose knowledge? I >don't think that reverse engineering can solve that problem. > >--- >Puryear Information Technology, LLC >Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 >http://www.puryear-it.com > >Author of "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" >Download your free copy: >http://www.puryear-it.com/bestpractices.htm > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric G Ortego >To: General at brlug.net >Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 5:55 AM >Subject: Re: [brlug-general] to release or not to release,intellectual >retentiveness. > > > > > >On 10/14/05, Dustin Puryear <dpuryear at usa.net> wrote: >This is semi-political, so when I have the new list up it will go there. > >Eric, you are right. Patents are used as weapons. I don't doubt that for a >second. (Do note that I'm not limiting myself to software patents here.) The >quesiton though is this: Is there a better way? Without patents, many, if >not most, innovative ideas will remain inside a company as a trade secret. >We will have to rely entirely on people reverse engineering implementations >to get to the original idea. Every idea! Even if at the time there was no >solid commercial interest to reverse engineer. Otherwise, when an inventor >or company disappears then society loses that new idea. > >I don't see that as a problem as long as we don't persecute those who >reverse engineer the secret solutions. The magnitude of the problem will >dictate how important a solution is. With any great solution open or closed >it will stick around until there is not a problem to be solved or there is a >better solution. > > > > >That's very risky to me. > > > > >The whole basis for a patent is that we, as a society, would rather grant an >inventor a temporary monopoly than risk losing a lot of innovative ideas >because they were retained as trade secrets and not properly documented for >public use after a patent expired. > >I think we are solving today's problems with yesterdays solutions. The same >goes for copyright. These were laws based on what we had back in the 1800's. >There isn't any good reason every single student should pay so much for >texts. > > > >A patent is just an incentive for a company to release a trade secret to the >public. > >Its hard for me to denounce anything that looks like it promotes disclosing >knowledge but maybe companies shouldn't be allowed to have secrets when >there is a chance that it negatively affects the well being of society . > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >General mailing list >General at brlug.net >http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > > >_______________________________________________ >General mailing list >General at brlug.net >http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > >
