TED Conversations

Ben Frawley

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Patents hinder the growth and innovation within society.

Have you ever had an idea, only to find that someone else has already patented it but is doing nothing with it. It seem that every idea I have, falls into this category.
I feel that society is missing out on the benefits of innovation because the world is choked by restrictive patents.
I look at China and its"reputation" for disregarding foreign patents. It is moving ahead in leaps and bounds because it chooses to not be bound by such restrictions.
I do see value in patents, but on the other hand I see they have a big negative too.
I feel that world wide patent law needs an overhaul.
What do you think?

Regards Benny

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    V Alexander

    • 0
    Jul 20 2012: The most disenfranchising aspect of the patent system is the squatters, who hold a patent but do nothing with it, waiting for license fees to be handed to them and pursuing infringement claims, where the lawyers just get richer and the newly-applied root idea is still-borne. It's great for them being first on the scene, but then they lock up that entire scene and no one has reasonable access. Similarly there used to be a 50-year collapse on copyrights, but now they just renew and renew. These jokers do not help society, they just become roadblocks to advancement and any alternative expressions of the tech or work.

  • Random Chance 30+

    • 0
    Jul 6 2012: PATENTS?

    Oh, sorry. I thought it said, "Parents" and I was ready to agree.

    But wait, I do agree. I think we should get rid of ownership of all kinds.
    It is no longer relevant, needed or helpful. It is only destructive, leads to greed, crime and war.
    Thank you.

  • Barry Palmer 50+

    • 0
    Jul 3 2012: The patent system is far from perfect, but it is necessary, and the net effect is to encourage innovation, and in particular investment in innovation.

    If you want to develop and market an idea that is already patented, go to the patent holder and negotiate a license agreement. The original inventor profits, you profit, and the public gets the benefit of an innovative product.

    Yes, it is all about the money, and that is not a bad thing. If you want to provide your own inventions to the public without charge, you are free to do so.
    • thumb

      Krisztián Pintér 200+

      • 0
      TED Translator
      Jul 20 2012: it is a myth. patents encourage some innovation and hinder some others. the net effect is questionable, but probably negative. and we haven't even touched the ethical issues about it.

      btw it is weird how strong in our thinking the fear of monopoly is. crazy anti trust laws disrupt businesses. but when it comes to patents, we applaud legal monopolies. why is that?
  • thumb

    Robert Winner 50+

    • 0
    Jun 21 2012: No. As David said it is all about the money. The capitalist system inspires innovation and free thinking on the promise of a better tomarrow if you "win". Even if you did away with patents who would fund industry to manufacture and distribute. Profits make all of this possible.

    All the best. Bob.

    • David Gorniak

      • 0
      Jun 21 2012: I think you have a good point, one that might make me re-evaluate my stance. Maybe patents protect ideas from being over developed or repeated to a point of creative stagnation in which case patents encourage us to move on to the next exciting thing that we have not yet thought of.
      I guess, in reference to my first comment, my issue with patents was specific to the problem that I had where a patent holder was not fulfilling the potential of their product which in that case the patent doesn't protect against stagnation but rather encourages it.
      • thumb

        Robert Winner 50+

        • 0
        Jun 22 2012: Perhaps there is a problem with the idea itself that the inventor cannot work out to satisfy investors or investors just will not fund its development.

        Either way it brings us back to the central issue ..... money.

        If no profit can be seen then no cash cow will step forward.

        Thanks for the reply. All the best. Bob.

  • David Gorniak

    • 0
    Jun 21 2012: ps apologies for the spelling mistakes and the such, i'm writing this on my phone!

  • David Gorniak

    • 0
    Jun 21 2012: to me it seems as if patents aren't there to protect creative ideas, since that would be absurd. Creative ideas should open and shared on which to build upon. The real purpose behind a patent is to protect it's royalties. The problem isn't the patent itself but the motivation behind the idea, which is often to make money. If we changed our attitude to one of open sharing, because it benefits the wider audience then there would be no need for patents. I would happily share an idea or product free of patent and welcome anyone to steal it and potentially improve on it, simply because it is of the greater benefir.
    The risk that you take without patents is that you can end up with lots of similar products but of varying quality but i thhinknin those scenarios its really down the choice of the consumer, and more often than not the consumer will choose that of higher and legitimate quality. What we need then, is a clear distinction between the origin of each producr or idea i.e that one is the original and the othet
    r a copy or development of the original and not a dead end patent
  • thumb

    Elizabeth Gu 30+

    • 0
    Jun 21 2012: Fair enough.
    But Patents also foster the growth of creativity in society.
    If there's no such thing, who would try to invent something innovative?
    Awarding a patent is a great incentive to the inventors.
    Inventing something requires uniqueness and creativity, but it also needs positive incentives--such as patent right.
    I agree that it can also be one of the factors which hinder the growth of creativity because there are so many complicated rules when it comes to patent. So people sometimes cannot even try to create something just because of the fear that this invention can be the counterfeit(so to speak) of the original one--the patented one.

    I know that quite a lot of Chinese factories are making similar ones.

    Speaking of 'similar', without patent, people would re-do the same works if there's no patent law.
    They will--intentionally or otherwise--try to imitate other products. Because there’s no specific rule that says they must not imitate others’ products. Then, there would be no compelling demand that they must produce something totally different from the patent products.


    Well, in our society, it seems like we have few chances to create something new since there are so many inventions that might be similar to ‘our thing’ because of this Patent thing.
    Nonetheless, with these limited options, people can be more creative and innovative.
    It does works.
    That's why I think Patent does not hinder the growth of innovation or creativity.

  • David Gorniak

    • 0
    Jun 21 2012: Agreed. Not that long ago, whilst discussing my Dad's new job involving renewable fuels and energies, i was led unto a path of thinking about biofuels. I remembered watching a report on a company that went around and collected old cooking oil from various kitchens and converted it into bio diesel. So i thought about what else could be collected and usd for the development of biofuels. It just so happened that i was preparing myself a cafetierre at the time and a curiosity arose - could coffee ground waste be used as a suitable biofuel? Some basic googling later and the answers to my curiosity were very promising. Coffee grounds actually burned more efficiently than wood and was relatively cheap to convert inti a bio diesel. Great, i thought, i'll collect all the coffee waste from all the starbucks, costas and cafe nero's and prodess it into wood log alternative's for home fires. The problem though, is that there already exists such a product in America - - the Java Log. And it's got a world wide patent, yet the product does not exist on the British market. You have to import it which us completdly useless. And there is no sign of the java log ever being produced in Britain which makes the whole 'patent a nature if hinderence rather than protection.
Showing all 12 comments