[seriously serious sirius XM radio] IP reform thread

[KrazyHorse]

I agree.

[Jon Miller]

The competition comment is based on the idea that there is a market for patents. Some decide to sit on them, some decide to license them, some decide to use them themselves.

If we want to create a government program that is buying up a significant portion of the 'worthwhile' patents, then this will obviously include a major new competitor in the market for patents.

A big benefit of the government versus corporations is that the corporations are trying to maximize profit, while the government's goal would be to maximize national growth (which relates to national income).

I was thinking a fee for use for corporations which do less than a certain amount of business within the country or some other such metric or a licensing fee for the property outside of the counrty or something. Otherwise other countries wouldn't have a large insentive to start buying patents themselves, rather they will just let the richest government (ours) do it.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

The competition comment is based on the idea that there is a market for patents. Some decide to sit on them, some decide to license them, some decide to use them themselves.

If we want to create a government program that is buying up a significant portion of the 'worthwhile' patents, then this will obviously include a major new competitor in the market for patents.

It's not a competitor, Jon. It's a subsidizer. It doesn't impose its own valuations on patents. It uses others' valuations to decide what to pay, then uses the patent in the most socially beneficial way (gives it away)

[Jon Miller]

My statement was that the patents of large companies would cost more, which would mean that the government would be less likely to buy one (if both patents provided the same benifit to society).

Due to the research that takes place in large companies, this is a negative of the system (it would work better if most research companies were small companies).

I didn't care whether it was 'mean' to the small corporations or not.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Is the market well developed enough for that to take place?

I am not at all sure, I gather that in many monopolistic situations, only a single company has the patent and is also the only one currently (due to the patent and previous patents) able to really use it so others aren't interested in buying it.

Obviously if the patent became available (as well as the other needed ones), new corporations would see a possibility and seek to enter in.

But for such patents, none but the current patent holder and the government would be intersted in purchase. This means that the government needs to have it's own people who can determine the worth of the patent and whether the government wants to buy or not.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I was thinking a fee for use for corporations which do less than a certain amount of business within the country or some other such metric or a licensing fee for the property outside of the counrty or something. Otherwise other countries wouldn't have a large insentive to start buying patents themselves, rather they will just let the richest government (ours) do it.

Jon, there's no reason to believe that countries couldn't collaborate on this. The US gov't would be the patent holder (on the international stage) of any patents it bought. If other countries didn't want to buy into the auction system they would still be bound by respect for the ownership of the patent (assuming they are bound by int'l patents today and aren't simply pirating everything) and, users of the patent in these countries would have to pay for licensing fees.

[KrazyHorse]

My statement was that the patents of large companies would cost more

Errr....no.

If anything, the patents of large companies would cost LESS. The auctions for the patents held by a large company would be missing a major bidder (the company itself)

[KrazyHorse]

which would mean that the government would be less likely to buy one (if both patents provided the same benifit to society)

Errr...did you even read what I wrote, Jon?

The government buys ALL PATENTS WITH THE SAME FREQUENCY (it pulls random numbers out of a hat to decide which patents to buy).

EDIT: all patents for which the owner accepts the sum (M * highest bid), that is

[Jon Miller]

Oh, companies can't bid on their own patents?

Hmm, not certain that that is reasonable.

How about my position of a single patent not being useful in itself, but multiple patents together being very useful?

JM

[Jon Miller]

which would mean that the government would be less likely to buy one (if both patents provided the same benifit to society)

Errr...did you even read what I wrote, Jon?

The government buys ALL PATENTS WITH THE SAME FREQUENCY (it pulls random numbers out of a hat to decide which patents to buy)

I was talking about my solution which is a bit different than your solution. I didn't actually read your solution.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Due to the research that takes place in large companies, this is a negative of the system (it would work better if most research companies were small companies).

Could you please stop making BAM statements, Jon?

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, companies can't bid on their own patents?

Of course not.

[KrazyHorse]

I bid infinity million dollars

[Jon Miller]

Due to the research that takes place in large companies, this is a negative of the system (it would work better if most research companies were small companies).

Could you please stop making BAM statements, Jon?

My statement makes sense in my system, we have been talking about different systems.

Based on your response to me, I thought we were talking about the same system but I see that I should have read your earlier posts first. My bad on that.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I was talking about my solution which is a bit different than your solution. I didn't actually read your solution.

JM

a) It's not "my" solution
b) Could you please read it it instead of discussing some crap that you made up which doesn't make any sense? Jon, you are NOT the expert here. Your position is student.