Atheism
Politics
Memes
Mind
Matters
String
Random
Interact
Feedback
Links
Debate
Home
How can you justify an inventor patenting a simple, obvious, invention and in the process creating a huge new corporation and bankrupting another? Samuel Colt was acknowledged as the inventor of the revolver, not just by history but by US and International law. That is totally inaccurate. Museums and private collections around the world are stuffed full of pre-Colt repeating pistols. Dozens and dozens of gunsmiths made functioning multi-shot pistols before Samuel Colt designed his, patented it, and at the same time was granted a patent on ALL FORMS of repeating pistol. The patent that Colt achieved went way beyond the needs of utility. He was granted a licence to print money. If that patent had not been so widely drawn other gunsmiths would have been free to develop more efficient repeating pistols. The free market would have operated to hone the development of the device.
If his patent had been on specific parts of the mechanism unique to Colt's design then he would have been able to reap the rewards of his own invention. As it actually unfolded Colt cashed in on the concept of the revolver, which was not his idea. Imagine the same story translated into a different industry, Henry Ford patents the model T Ford and at the same time is granted patents on all cars. Patent nonsense.
Like many of my political ideas the success of my proposals depends on eliminating foreign competition by achieving a One World state. A new body is required to register patents, trademarks and copyright claims. It needs to be charged with putting the interests of the community first, intellectual property rights must always be subservient to the public interest. The way the world is developing almost anybody could have a little idea that forms the cornerstone of an enormous business empire or new way of working. The idea that all inventions are 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration was put about by history's sweatiest inventor, Edison.
The classic symbol of a spontaneous bright idea is the light bulb, it is found in every clip-art collection. But that is the perfect example of the non-spontaneous invention. Edison had set himself the task of inventing the electrically operated incandescent lamp and employed several men to help him in his search for the right materials. In the end he found a poor material and announced his "success" to the world, virtually simultaneously with Joseph Swan. The light bulb was the classic 99% perspiration invention.
How would you judge the case for the division of the spoils between the man who decides that a crotch sniffing artificial dog-nose is the perfect device for credit card identity checks (© M Willett 1 November 2000) and the team who works three years to develop a working prototype? If the invention is brought from initial idea to working prototype by a single inventor then the case is fairly clear, but that is not often the way things are invented these days. More often than not ideas are the result of teamwork. Creative people alongside skilled technicians. Many ideas that change the world just sort of happen. They emerge as a spontaneous idea in the mind of one person, often through no great effort or will of invention. Alternatively many other ideas just invent themselves, the idea is around and it just comes together. The Internet is an example of something that just invented itself, there were pioneers and visionaries but it did not happen at a single point in time in the mind of a single person, it evolved through the interplay of people and events.
James Dyson,modest to a fault, as always |
James Dyson is said to be worth about half a billion pounds. A clever inventor and a good businessman, but really! Half a BILLION! Is it really necessary to allow any person to make so much money to allow a relatively simple idea to be launched on the market? It is obvious how the egomaniac himself has benefited from the case but how has it helped the general public? In the shop I work in there is a sad little collection of second rate Hoover products that are sitting waiting to be sent to an ignominious end. Banished from the shopfloor. Condemned by the courts as violations of patents. To me this is obviously not in the interests of the public as a whole. What would be in the interests of everybody would be a system that granted patents to the inventor and a small time window in which the inventor could have exclusive use of that idea. Following the exclusive right period should come a period of compulsory licensing. The inventor must grant a licence to use the patent to any company that asks, and pays a fair royalty for it. |
When the are six billion consumers in the world the potential to become obscenely rich by having one bright idea is quite high. It is obviously in the interests of society as a whole that good ideas can be brought to the market. It does no good to have inventors too scared to leave the house in case their secret invention leaks out. A reasonable balance must be struck between the good of humanity and the interests of the inventor. I cannot see how this balance could be struck better than through a single, simple and global patent and copyright law. This could ensure that inventors get a chance to use their invention in the way they see fit. Then a period of licensed use could allow any company to manufacture or apply the invention while at the same time paying a modest licence fee for the privilege.
To make it fair the periods for exclusive use and licensing could vary depending on the market potential of the invention. Something that will never make a fortune because of the small size of the market could be granted a long licence period, as much as 30 years. While products that have a high potential for earning money could have a shorter period. A new software technique could have a one year exclusive period and a five year licence period, with reducing rates in each year.
A merging of patent and copyright law would have some advantage. The distinction between invention and creative work is at times arbitrary.
Songs should be protected by exclusive rights for only one year. After that period any licence fee payable to the composer should be set at a very modest level. Recorded music should be free to be republished after one year without the original composers or musicians being able to oppose its republishing, subject again to modest fees being paid. Musicians should have the right to make a living out of their music, but not a killing.