Patents. Do they hinder progress?

Dolph · 16 Mar 2009 at 10:16

A good patent system is crucial to maintain good R&D progress by protecting the results of expensive research from theft.

Whether we have a good patent system is a different matter entirely, because a bad patent system can certainly stifle progress and innovation (see Rambus, or most software patents, for example)

ots3go · 16 Mar 2009 at 10:17

megakid said:
Did anyone else read the title as "Parents. Do they hinder progress?"

indeed, I wondered what the hell was going off after reading the first two posts.

Then checked the title again.

Yamahahahahaha · 16 Mar 2009 at 10:31

20 years is a long time in business. Having a monopoly on a top-grade product for 20 years is somewhat ridiculous when you can see entire industries rise and fall in that period.

As with everything, there's room for improvement, I wouldn't sign up to abolishing patents without having a more suitable replacement to implement straight away.

Dolph · 16 Mar 2009 at 10:37

Yamahahahahaha said:
20 years is a long time in business. Having a monopoly on a top-grade product for 20 years is somewhat ridiculous when you can see entire industries rise and fall in that period.

As with everything, there's room for improvement, I wouldn't sign up to abolishing patents without having a more suitable replacement to implement straight away.

The 20 years isn't from time to market, it's from concept filing. There are many patents that haven't been marketed full stop for 15 years or so, or not marketed mainstream for most of the duration of the patent.

N9ne · 16 Mar 2009 at 11:49

Fast innovating products generally do not have patents, commonly seen in the software industry.

Slower innovation, such as drugs require patents to incentivise the innovator and to allow the recovery of the sunk costs.

CaptainComedy · 16 Mar 2009 at 11:52

Dolph said:
The 20 years isn't from time to market, it's from concept filing. There are many patents that haven't been marketed full stop for 15 years or so, or not marketed mainstream for most of the duration of the patent.

still, I think different sectors could benefit from having a different limit in the patents length. I can understand that pharmaceutical (spelling?) companies require the 20 years.

But consumer technology companies really do not. especially say in the mobile phone market where a phone is new one minute and old news the next. Plain example is apples touch technology (which isnt really theirs and are being sued I believe) Or graphics cards makers ATI and NVIDIA. ATI nearly went under because of the strangle hold NVIDIA had and then there was the whole crossfire vs SLI. If patents weren't so intrusive in such scenarios, things might be able to be resolved more amicably.

I understand that business is business but there's a line between fair game and negatively impacting the market as a whole.

Dolph · 16 Mar 2009 at 12:16

codec said:
still, I think different sectors could benefit from having a different limit in the patents length. I can understand that pharmaceutical (spelling?) companies require the 20 years.

But consumer technology companies really do not. especially say in the mobile phone market where a phone is new one minute and old news the next. Plain example is apples touch technology (which isnt really theirs and are being sued I believe) Or graphics cards makers ATI and NVIDIA. ATI nearly went under because of the strangle hold NVIDIA had and then there was the whole crossfire vs SLI. If patents weren't so intrusive in such scenarios, things might be able to be resolved more amicably.

I understand that business is business but there's a line between fair game and negatively impacting the market as a whole.

Most consumer technologies didn't start that way though, they were business or high level research tech before they were consumer tech, and the patents are much older.

I'm also not sure that failure of companies unable or unwilling to innovate has a negative impact on the market as a whole.

aardvark · 16 Mar 2009 at 12:26

the patent laws need to be looked at - there are plenty of drugs etc that have shown potentially helpful effects but will never be investigated because they cannot be patented, so the company that investigates them will never get that money back.
i would say the overly strict rules on patents hinders research and public benefit significantly.

CaptainComedy · 16 Mar 2009 at 12:29

Dolph said:
I'm also not sure that failure of companies unable or unwilling to innovate has a negative impact on the market as a whole.

well if company a has a patent but doesnt know how/doesnt want to improve it and company b doesnt have the patent but the knowledge to improve it then I think it would have an impact because company C might need that product to improve their products in a different sector.

I mean there have been plenty of patent violations made by companies and for good reason too. look at intel and nvidia (I think it was something about intel not letting nvidia using their fsb infrastructure). Nvidia had a great motherboard but because intel didnt let them use their technology, the motherboard was a pile of garbage compared to what it could have been like. Result? I have to fork out for a different motherboard when I could have had a much better one.

CrazySpeaker · 16 Mar 2009 at 14:18

Aod said:
uh-huh? are you running a massively slimmed down copy, or using an SSD

if not, you're simply lying or mistaken as to how long it actually takes to boot. have you actually timed it?
i've timed windows 7s bootup, which is universally credited with booting faster than Vista. it takes 35 seconds to get to the login screen from a cold boot, and a further 15 to get to the desktop.

I use two SSDs in RAID. But still, Vista would take longer to load, it has more to load.

It takes about 12 seconds to get to the login screen, and it takes about 2-3 seconds to get to the desktop from the login screen at most.