Patent System

From Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent ):

Quote :

The debate as to which system is better is long-running and unlikely to reach a single conclusion. There are arguments for and against both systems.

The first to file system leads to procedural certainty as the filing date of an application can very rarely be challenged. In contrast, the first to invent system leads to uncertainty as the right to grant of a patent can be challenged by a second party and can only be finally determined by extensive consideration of the making of the invention.

It is said, however, that the first to file system favours large companies who can afford to rapidly file patent applications, thereby gaining an advantage over smaller companies who are slower to file due to cost restraints. The first to invent system is therefore said to be beneficial in encouraging the growth of smaller companies. A potential problem with this argument is that a smaller company, filing second, would have to rely on interference proceedings to claim their patent, which may be beyond their economic reach and they are therefore no better off.

The last point is interesting.

http://www.inventions.org/resources/advisory/first.html

Quote :

"Why has the United States led the world in technological development?" We believe that a key factor has been the "first to invent" feature of our 200-year-old patent law—and the priority/protection it provides.

http://www.oblon.com/Pub/GholzFirsttoFile.html

Quote :

Accordingly, it would be good for the world market and for industrialized civilization as a whole if the United States would change its archaic first-to- invent system, which is undoubtedly the most significant idiosyncratic aspect of American patent law, to a first-to-file system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law

Perhaps it would be economically advantageous to deny monopolistic patent rights, allowing any company to exploit the patent, but requiring royalties to be paid to the patent holder.

I would prefer a system where any new innovations and inventions are exploited, or come to market, as quickly as possible.

Perhaps royalties only need to be paid when the company using the patent makes a reasonable profit. Anyone would be free to use the patent if no profits are made directly from the invention.

This way, companies may utilize the invention straight away to improve their efficiency, but are required to pay royalties if the invention is proved to increase profits.

If it does not increase proits, then the patent can be used for free, enabling the invention to be developed and refined to the point where it functions well enough to increase profits, at which point royalties are paid.

I would also like to see more government-sponsored competitions to spur innovation in needed areas. Similar to the X-prize and other private orginizations, but with government money and backing.

My above proposal will still allow a great deal of investment if the inventor wants to create his own company, even if he is no longer given monopolistic rights to his own patent.

This is because he is guaranteed revenue from royalties if his invention is profitable. If the invention holds promise, investors may go to his company first as the inventor will both have more knowledge relating to his invention, and greater assurance of funding due to royalties.

I agree with the royalty system, and I would say that a first to invent system would be more fair. But with the royalty system, maybe you only have to pay the royalty if you glean a profit off of using/ selling the invention. As an extention to that, I would extend the patent lifetime to 100 years.

This is very interesting. I made the mistake of posting a really good invention for a hovertechnology on the internet and someone has gone and stolen it, and (supposodly) patenting it. Since it'll be on the American system though, I will legally have the rights to the Patent.

Does this belong in the Technology section?

I prefer the sound of the first-to-invent system, perhaps with an extended lifetime and royalty system. But who sets the royalties? Would they be a percentage of the profit made?

That makes sense to me. Say 10%?

But, in the case of an idea which increases the profits at a company, how do you decide how much the profit increase was due to the idea, rather than other factors?

It doesn't matter- that's how royalties work, and the company has to decide if it's worth it.

But what if the company uses 11 inventions, and the Royalty rate is 10%? Then that means the company will be giving out 110% of the profit increase. Unless you first divide the profit increase by 11, and give 10% of 1/11 to each inventor.

Perhaps 10% is too high- maybe 5% or even 1% would be fair. I really don't know.