[asmithmd1]

With my proposal there is still the exact same $1B pot of gold for the inventor, the difference is everyone gets the benefit of their invention now. The trick is to set the claim license fee so that the value of the patent is exactly equal to the value of a current patent.

[pclmulqdq]

Great, now figure out how to discern the value of a patent without negotiating it. Also, for many patents (drugs, for example), a lot of the value comes from the exclusivity of it, and losing that also decimates the value of the patent.

This isn't copyright where 100000 plays of someone's cover is worth $1 and doesn't hurt the original artist at all. This is a hundred million dollar asset offering exclusive access to a competitive product. This is fundamentally different.

[asmithmd1]

> a lot of the value comes from the exclusivity of it

I think you are confusing value and price. Auctions precisely determine something's value. Companies sometimes can use scarcity to capture more money in price than they deliver in value - but that is a bug in our economic system, not a desired feature

[pclmulqdq]

Implied in your comment is that scarcity does not confer value, which is just not true. Scarcity, particularly when controlled by one entity, creates tremendous value for that entity because it creates a power imbalance with other entities. Otherwise, the secret coca-cola formula would have no reason to stay secret. Patents actually get their entire value from the artificial scarcity they create - you don't need a patent to confer an invention to someone else, only to stop other people from using it. Scarcity also greatly improves your ability to capture value, but it creates value to be in the club.

Another possible misunderstanding you may have about the concept of "value" is that you may be conflating value (in general) with societal value. One is a subset of the other - you can get value, companies can get value, and society can get value. People and companies can get a lot of value out of things that are not directly valuable to society, and society tolerates these things because society, on the whole, gets more value from having those people and companies in it than not. This is why you can drink, and also why most countries have patent systems despite that patent owners may not make optimal societal use of their patents during the term of their limited monopoly.

Also, if you have ever sold a patent before, you will know that it frequently takes the form of an auction process. Even if not explicitly structured as an auction, these negotiations have auction-like qualities with buyers bidding against each other and actually a lot of information-sharing.

[asmithmd1]

So you are saying price==value? That is not true. The price a company extracts from a customer is de-coupled from the value a customer receives.

If I walk into a store to buy a shirt I saw online only to discover it is on sale for 20% off, I am getting the exact same value as buying it online, but the company captured less of the value they delivered.

If there is one shirt left in the store and the store holds an auction for it that I win for a price 20% higher, again I get the exact same value, but the store captured 20% more of the value.

The goal of any sane economy should be to deliver the most value to the people in it - including the people who own companies.

[pclmulqdq]

Basic economics can tell you that "price <= value to customer" is a relationship that holds pretty damn strongly. Price isn't decoupled from value, it is derived from value. I am just saying that the actual customer (not some nebulous notion of society) derives value from the scarcity.

Like it or not, people often get value from scarce things, usually in the form of power (or status for other kinds of goods). In a system with compulsory licenses for everyone who wants them, that power is gone, and so is the value related to it.

> The goal of any sane economy should be to deliver the most value to the people in it - including the people who own companies.

Which is why every economy today has a strong patent system with monopolistic rights. It is a very good way to deliver value to inventors and small technology business owners while encouraging disclosure, and a good incentive for them, in turn, to contribute to the wider body of societal knowledge. A system with mandatory non-scarce licenses would not do this - we would end up with more "coke formulas" and fewer papers.

[asmithmd1]

Now I understand what you are saying. The only way I see individuals deriving value from scarcity is with brands - not functional patents. Even with technical luxury goods like watches and cars, which may also include patents, the real customer scarcity value comes from showing others they are rich enough to buy and flaunt those goods. Can you think of an example where something purely functional is only valuable because it is scarce? Maybe private jets? If jets dropped in price 50x, private airports would become crowded and destroy much of their benefit. But then the gating luxury good would switch to being a member of a private airport network or something.

I am talking about a change to patents, not copyright and trademarks which are exclusive essentially forever. You can still strut around with a $20k Birkin bag (If they deem you a worthy buyer of course) that delivers the same functionality as a $100 purse. No one will be allowed to make fake Birkins and destroy their exclusivity. But if Hermes patents some new zipper, you would be able to duplicate their zipper and pay them a license fee. You would NOT be allowed to mention their brand. Patents are about function, not color, size, style or ornamentation.