I’d say that overall I’m in accord with all that you say here. I’m certainly not arguing against patents – but I do think that a lot of people have an over-reliance on them.

In my classes, if just ask people how they can profit from innovation, all they can think of is patents. But if I tell them a story first, like how Apple ended up with the Graphical User Interface from Xerox, then ask for ways that the idea could have been better used by Xerox, they come up with tons of ideas. So I spend a fair bit of time trying to think up creative ways to move people beyond thinking only of patents…

Beyond, that, though, the open source software movement has shown that voluntary liberal licensing can help foster profits, as in the business model of companies who provide free software but charge for maintaining the system using the software.

On the other hand, though not essential, patent can be very useful in the right situation. I find all too often that the aesthetic/philosophic debate about whether the government should grant exclusive rights to use a technology blurs the issue, as patent enforcement has worked a benefit for those whom the law grants those rights.

I’m deeply in favor of liberally licensed technology,
of companies which recognize that research placed in the public domain can minimize the business risk attached to a competitor’s potential patents, and of research freed from the constraints of a patent system. Here in the USA, I favor patents but want to see them issued only when a right is properly established. I favor a more limited copyright term without the artificial new extensions. I do not favor using trademark law as a patent surrogate.
That said, a patent license can be a very useful thing, and is one path to commercialization.

I’m delighted to see my image in use here. This is just the kind of post I hoped might use it.

My immediate question is: why in the hell did you patent something without understanding the answer to that question BEFORE you filed?

In the end, having an exclusive right to do (or in the case of patents, to prevent from doing)/have/use something is only worth $$ if someone has a reason to want to do that something. Educating the market and tapping into demand for an idea is where the heavy lifting happens.

Even if an inventor chooses not to run a company and build the product him/herself, I rarely see a “naked” patent license unless it is a result of expensive and wasteful litigation.

As a result, even inventors that want to work from home need to think about how to supplement any patent rights with practical advice/hands-on consulting on how to build and commercialize the patented idea. As a result, more than ever, inventors need collaboration partners to help fill the gaps between idea and execution. Without it, you may have a patent, but it may not protect anything of value.

Thanks for the post.

Kendall
@ideasurge

If we rustle up a few more of these we’d have all the ingredients necessary to host a “list-athon”!