Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> If you're really the first, you should be able to get about a 20 year head start.

That's an opinion, and not one I agree with.

If you and your competitor are racing to develop a thing, whoever wins by a couple months shouldn't get a monopoly for decades.

Most of the time when things get patented, it's strictly worse for innovation in that space until the patents expire. 3d printing is a great example.

It's asinine to think you can outsource manufacturing of whatever object to some other company in another country, but that no one on the planet can make the same thing because "the idea is yours".





> Most of the time when things get patented, it's strictly worse for innovation in that space until the patents expire.

What happens at expiration is an important and intended feature of patents. They trade a legally guaranteed headstart against the requirement of publishing your methods for your competitors to learn from.


Oh, I know.

The fact that it takes decades for that to come about is harmful to society.


You would prefer the inventor to be basically ensured of financial destruction and disincentivized in the first place, sounds great for society.

I'd say it might be time to talk about putting a pause on incentives to advance non-medical technologies at the moment.

Skill issue. That just sounds like you're bad at inventing things and running businesses.

Lots of places sell unique/novel things that are not patented, successfullyn


I agree. I'd assume that's a holdover from a time when innovation moved slower.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: