James Watt, patent troll

The Myth that Patents are a Monopoly A patent gives the holder the right to exclude others from making, using or selling their invention. 35 USC 154. It does not give the holder the right to make, use or sell their invention. A monopoly is an exclusive right to a market, such as an electric utility company. An electric utility company has the exclusive right to sell electricity in a certain territory. Since a patent does not even given the holder the right to sell their invention, let alone an exclusive right to a market, it is clearly not a monopoly. When a person describes a patent as a monopoly to be consistent they should also state that they have a monopoly over their car or over their house. In fact, they have more rights in their car and house than a patent gives the inventor over their invention, since you have a right to use and sell your car or house. A patent does not give these rights to an inventor over his invention. All invention are built upon existing elements (conservation of matter) and if the elements that the invention uses are patented, then the inventor will not have the right to sell their invention without a license. Some economists argue that a patent is designed to give the holder monopoly power. Those economists who are consistent also state that all property rights give some monopoly power. The property rights are monopolies thesis shows how confused economic thought is on this subject. The only logically consistent definition of a monopoly is an exclusive right to a market. People who suggest a patent is a monopoly are not being intellectually honest and perpetuating a myth to advance a political agenda. For more information on patents and innovation see www.hallingblog.com.

Have you looked at medical patents. In particular, there is a bit of a rush for a replacement disk for back injuries. If you research the possibilities they are many and each has one or more good reasons for its existence. Unfortunately none are actually very good. In fact a combination of the best features of each design might actually work. But when are we going to see 7 different inventors look to see their best ideas combined for a share of the profit.

Many forget that the real purpose of the patent system is to promote the exchange of information. I would argue that the patent system has done a great job of this. Silicon Valley would not exist if every company worked secretly and new advances were never shared. Of course, the patent system is not very good at rewarding the right people, but that is not its primary intent. I have almost 70 patents including some on products that grossed over a billion dollars, but all patents are assigned to the companies I worked for and I have never received a penny of royalties. But without patents, I would have never been allowed to publish technical papers that advanced the art and also advanced my career. It may not be not fair to the inventor, but to get a product to market, the invention is only a small part of the effort. Companies that figure out how to make and sell the inventions are rewarded. The lone inventor problem is not a patent problem but is due to the scarcity of seed funding and the incredible difficulty of building a successful company.

the patenter of the air bags got his patent in like the mid 50's. and coverage lasted until the early 70's. Air bags did not see adoption in cars until the 90's, the inventor never got a penny. sometimes it takes a long time for basic patents to come to fruition.

Interesting response RealScience thanks for sharing.

The typical time from FUNDAMENTAL NEW DISCOVERY("invention") to market is 20 to 30 years

Hogwash. I am a small-entity inventor with a few dozen patents. One year is ridiculous - By the time I have a product on the market, the patent would be obsolete! Even at 5 years, I could never raise funding and I'd be out of business. With some of my more fundamental innovations, 20 years from date of application is barely long enough! There are really three major problems with the patent system: 1) a bunch of obvious junk gets patented because some prior art is not uncovered in the patenting process. 2) The patent office backlog means that it takes several years even to get an initial response. 3) When a patent is re-examined and rejected, during the appeals process royalties should go into escrow pending a final ruling, rather than continuing to go to the patent holder.