This has almost nothing to do with privacy and misses the point behind planned obsolescence. The goal behind both are the same: maximize recurring revenue. The goal behind patents is different: obstruct competition. Fixing one has almost no impact on the others.
patents can be issued for practical time periods, instead of practically indefinite, as it is now.
Patents aren’t “practically indefinite,” they’re 20 years (15 for design patents). I don’t think that’s egregious, but I do think it’s a little too long, especially since there’s no requirement to actually produce the thing.
My preference is 5 years, with renewal if they can prove they’re building the thing and need more time, or have built the thing but need an extension to recoup R&D (i.e. renew from date of release). If they’re not building the thing or intentionally delaying, renewal should be denied.
That doesn’t help planned obsolescence or privacy at all, because neither is particularly related to patents.
The goal behind both are the same: maximize recurring revenue. The goal behind patents is different: obstruct competition. Fixing one has almost no impact on the others.
Obstructing competition has impact on every agreed policy, first. Second, it obviously has direct impact in maximizing revenue.
but I do think it’s a little too long, especially since there’s no requirement to actually produce the thing.
20 years ago some people in developing countries still used DOS.
My preference is 5 years, with renewal if they can prove they’re building the thing and need more time, or have built the thing but need an extension to recoup R&D (i.e. renew from date of release). If they’re not building the thing or intentionally delaying, renewal should be denied.
My preference would be just 5 years with no conditionals. Simpler things are harder to abuse.
That doesn’t help planned obsolescence or privacy at all, because neither is particularly related to patents.
That’s stupid, sorry. Like saying tanks are not related to air force. They are components of the same system.
20 years ago some people in developing countries still used DOS.
I don’t see your point. I’ve seen DOS used in inventory systems in developed countries, and any patents related to DOS expired 25 years ago. Patents aren’t why developing countries use old tech, in fact most don’t enforce or even recognise US patents (or any IP law, for that matter).
What you seem to be talking about is copyright law, which is a completely different topic.
Simpler things are harder to abuse.
If patents are too simple, they’ll be ineffective at actually solving valid business concerns and companies will just lobby for longer protections. Pharmaceuticals, for example, often need longer than 5 years to get a product to market, and creating a generic drug from a patent can take much less time and can piggyback off the studies the original company went through and get fast-tracked through the regulatory process. If they’re able to reset the clock when they go to market, they may be okay with a shorter duration.
Any policy change needs to balance the very real concerns of all interested parties.
They are components of the same system.
Only in the very abstract sense of trying to sell more stuff.
But patents have nothing to do with the main areas of planned obsolescence people are annoyed at, like TVs, laptops/phones, software, etc. Nor do they have anything to do with privacy issues people are concerned about, like Microsoft Recall, data breaches, or data brokers. It’s a completely separate system from any of those concerns.
I mean normal people for daily stuff still used DOS sometimes. As an idea of how long 20 years is. OK. 20 years ago people were renting VHS tapes. 20 years ago Revenge of the Sith came out.
It’s not a different topic, it’s about patents expiring fast enough to not allow an entrenched oligopoly, but not fast enough to make innovation not worth it.
5 years after market entry, OK.
Yes and no, balance of concerns leads to something like politics, with no principle at all, just power games. It’s what we have now.
Reducing competitiveness is pretty directly connected to planned obsolescence. It’s possible because of oligopoly and because of a few companies making the fashion of what one can use in year 2024 and what is from year 2004 and isn’t normal.
Reducing competitiveness is pretty directly connected to planned obsolescence.
Not really. TVs, phones, laptops, appliances, etc are all really competitive markets, and all of them have issues with planned obsolescence. The reason for this has nothing to do with patents at all, but the manufacturer cutting corners to keep costs down, or in the case of phones and some laptops, blocking their manufacturers from selling parts.
That’s what the right to repair movement is all about, and it has nothing to do with patents but schematics and contracts. They’re intentionally making things harder to repair. They would rather their customers come to them for repairs (where they can upcharge), buy their protection plan (recurring revenue), or replace the device (chance at an additional sale) instead of repairing it themselves. None of that is related patents whatsoever.
5 years after market entry, OK.
Then we need rules on how long they can take to bring it to market. Hence 5 years, with an optional renewal if they need more time. One renewal, that’s it, so a maximum time of 10 years if they use full 5 years to bring it to market.
Not really. TVs, phones, laptops, appliances, etc are all really competitive markets,
No they are not. It’s a few large producers of components, mostly, with litigious interfaces, like USB, mostly, with Intel, AMD and some ARM CPUs, mostly, with drivers for Windows first, mostly.
That’s what the right to repair movement is all about, and it has nothing to do with patents but schematics and contracts. They’re intentionally making things harder to repair.
This means there’s demand for things easier to repair, but nobody’s making them. That’s because of barriers in the form of patents and licenses. You are not going to dissuade me, LOL.
Then we need rules on how long they can take to bring it to market. Hence 5 years, with an optional renewal if they need more time. One renewal, that’s it, so a maximum time of 10 years if they use full 5 years to bring it to market.
This has almost nothing to do with privacy and misses the point behind planned obsolescence. The goal behind both are the same: maximize recurring revenue. The goal behind patents is different: obstruct competition. Fixing one has almost no impact on the others.
Patents aren’t “practically indefinite,” they’re 20 years (15 for design patents). I don’t think that’s egregious, but I do think it’s a little too long, especially since there’s no requirement to actually produce the thing.
My preference is 5 years, with renewal if they can prove they’re building the thing and need more time, or have built the thing but need an extension to recoup R&D (i.e. renew from date of release). If they’re not building the thing or intentionally delaying, renewal should be denied.
That doesn’t help planned obsolescence or privacy at all, because neither is particularly related to patents.
Obstructing competition has impact on every agreed policy, first. Second, it obviously has direct impact in maximizing revenue.
20 years ago some people in developing countries still used DOS.
My preference would be just 5 years with no conditionals. Simpler things are harder to abuse.
That’s stupid, sorry. Like saying tanks are not related to air force. They are components of the same system.
I don’t see your point. I’ve seen DOS used in inventory systems in developed countries, and any patents related to DOS expired 25 years ago. Patents aren’t why developing countries use old tech, in fact most don’t enforce or even recognise US patents (or any IP law, for that matter).
What you seem to be talking about is copyright law, which is a completely different topic.
If patents are too simple, they’ll be ineffective at actually solving valid business concerns and companies will just lobby for longer protections. Pharmaceuticals, for example, often need longer than 5 years to get a product to market, and creating a generic drug from a patent can take much less time and can piggyback off the studies the original company went through and get fast-tracked through the regulatory process. If they’re able to reset the clock when they go to market, they may be okay with a shorter duration.
Any policy change needs to balance the very real concerns of all interested parties.
Only in the very abstract sense of trying to sell more stuff.
But patents have nothing to do with the main areas of planned obsolescence people are annoyed at, like TVs, laptops/phones, software, etc. Nor do they have anything to do with privacy issues people are concerned about, like Microsoft Recall, data breaches, or data brokers. It’s a completely separate system from any of those concerns.
I mean normal people for daily stuff still used DOS sometimes. As an idea of how long 20 years is. OK. 20 years ago people were renting VHS tapes. 20 years ago Revenge of the Sith came out.
It’s not a different topic, it’s about patents expiring fast enough to not allow an entrenched oligopoly, but not fast enough to make innovation not worth it.
5 years after market entry, OK.
Yes and no, balance of concerns leads to something like politics, with no principle at all, just power games. It’s what we have now.
Reducing competitiveness is pretty directly connected to planned obsolescence. It’s possible because of oligopoly and because of a few companies making the fashion of what one can use in year 2024 and what is from year 2004 and isn’t normal.
Not really. TVs, phones, laptops, appliances, etc are all really competitive markets, and all of them have issues with planned obsolescence. The reason for this has nothing to do with patents at all, but the manufacturer cutting corners to keep costs down, or in the case of phones and some laptops, blocking their manufacturers from selling parts.
That’s what the right to repair movement is all about, and it has nothing to do with patents but schematics and contracts. They’re intentionally making things harder to repair. They would rather their customers come to them for repairs (where they can upcharge), buy their protection plan (recurring revenue), or replace the device (chance at an additional sale) instead of repairing it themselves. None of that is related patents whatsoever.
Then we need rules on how long they can take to bring it to market. Hence 5 years, with an optional renewal if they need more time. One renewal, that’s it, so a maximum time of 10 years if they use full 5 years to bring it to market.
No they are not. It’s a few large producers of components, mostly, with litigious interfaces, like USB, mostly, with Intel, AMD and some ARM CPUs, mostly, with drivers for Windows first, mostly.
This means there’s demand for things easier to repair, but nobody’s making them. That’s because of barriers in the form of patents and licenses. You are not going to dissuade me, LOL.
Agreed.