1. The US does not have compulsory licenses in most cases, and as a result patent-holders can set their own fee schedule. They can, if they want, charge $1 million per individual product produced, even if the products themselves are sold for $20 a pop. Or, they can simply refuse to license if they feel like it. In any event, they raise the cost of experimenting in cross-use, which is a societal cost overall. See my #2, below, for why I think this matters.
It's a lie that you can't do incremental invention, based on other patents, you can and honestly lawyer must know that you can gain benefits regarding rights to use parental patent when you got sub-patent based on it.
Not true, in the US. Here, you can gain a patent "downstream" of existing patents (so, I could get a patent for a refinement of iPhone touchscreen tech) but you cannot exploit that patent until the original patent, off of which you are "piggybacking," has expired. Even then, experimenting with the patented technology may be barred, if the holder seeks to enforce it, so you'd have trouble reducing to practice outside of the patent application, which is a lot of money to go through if you can't even build a prototype.
2. I'm not a Marxist, and I don't look at IP from a cost-to-produce standpoint. I look at patents and other IP from the perspective of asking what protections are necessary to incentivize creativity. Period. If it's very cheap to develop but single-use, arguably you need greater protections than someone with a hard-to-replicate process which would act as its own functional bar to the reproduction of the invention. The question I'm trying to ask is if we have protections so extensive that they've passed the point of maximum return, recognizing that each protection comes with a corresponding cost to cross-use and other innovation in the same field.
no subject
It's a lie that you can't do incremental invention, based on other patents, you can and honestly lawyer must know that you can gain benefits regarding rights to use parental patent when you got sub-patent based on it.
Not true, in the US. Here, you can gain a patent "downstream" of existing patents (so, I could get a patent for a refinement of iPhone touchscreen tech) but you cannot exploit that patent until the original patent, off of which you are "piggybacking," has expired. Even then, experimenting with the patented technology may be barred, if the holder seeks to enforce it, so you'd have trouble reducing to practice outside of the patent application, which is a lot of money to go through if you can't even build a prototype.
2. I'm not a Marxist, and I don't look at IP from a cost-to-produce standpoint. I look at patents and other IP from the perspective of asking what protections are necessary to incentivize creativity. Period. If it's very cheap to develop but single-use, arguably you need greater protections than someone with a hard-to-replicate process which would act as its own functional bar to the reproduction of the invention. The question I'm trying to ask is if we have protections so extensive that they've passed the point of maximum return, recognizing that each protection comes with a corresponding cost to cross-use and other innovation in the same field.
3. Irrelevant, see #2.