I'm not a fan of patents, but in that case, it's not like some bigco seeking to perpetually extend monopolistic rights on some product - the inventor is alive, they made what seems like a genuine contribution to the world, and that contribution is very concrete and complete - not some hollow vaguely generic not directly usable "design".
So it's actually a case where patents are a good fit: the inventor gets to decide the life of their design (and make a bit of money out of it) before anyone can use it freely.
> I'm not a fan of patents, but in that case, it's not like some bigco seeking to perpetually extend monopolistic rights on some product - the inventor is alive, they made what seems like a genuine contribution to the world, and that contribution is very concrete and complete - not some hollow vaguely generic not directly usable "design".
If the inventor keeps the prices too high, then it is basically the same as ensuring that the public can't have it. That's not good. Inventors and investors should be compensated, and cheap alternatives from other manufacturers should appear.
That might be good for the inventor, but that whole thinking that the inventor’s rights trump the rest of the world’s is pre-modern. As we have seen from the last couple of decades, it is always better for consumers when the “official” product exists alongside some cheaper version that one can order from e.g. Aliexpress.
Owning a harpejji is not exactly a human right or anything. Let the guy get some money off the massive R&D and creativity that went into the instrument before kicking it over to Behringer to release the $300 clone.
I'm confused. You made a statement that they're not licensing their patent. I'm asking you what is that based on. Who asked to license their patent and was denied? Surely you have that since you made that claim right? Just your imagination or actual verifiable evidence that the rest of us can check? If challenging your claim is trolling or sealioning or cat fishing or bear baiting or worm wiggling, then so be it.
It’s a form of patent trolling. The point of patents is that inventors should be compensated fairly for their inventions. Not that they should be able to prevent the production of those inventions like little dictators - that does not advance society.
No, it's not. Patent trolling has a specific meaning (having vacuous broad patents or using patents against companies who aren't really infringing, associated with not having an actual product and making your money off this, usually having hoarded many patents exactly for this purpose).
This is simply the creator of this design enforcing their patent, like any business with a patented product does.
>Not that they should be able to prevent the production of those inventions like little dictators - that does not advance society.
Nope, it's exactly that they should be able to control the production of their inventions. If it wasn't for that control, patents would have no practical purpose.
A patent is a time-limited monopoly on an invention, so yes, preventing others from making the same thing is exactly what a patent is for. The idea being that during this time, the inventor can either be the sole source of the widget, thus profiting from it directly, or licence it to someone else. Either case means that they get "compensated fairly".
That's exactly what a patent is. The purpose (at least for the US) is stated in the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
> [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
"A U.S. patent gives you, the inventor, the right to “exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” an invention or “importing” it into the U.S. ... What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import the invention, but the right to stop others from doing so. If someone infringes on your patent, you may initiate legal action."
Please explain its true purpose then. The "exclusive rights in exchange for publishing" seems to have been the very idea behind patents for hundreds of years, all the way back to Jerusalem and Venezia according to Wikipedia, and also defined as such in the modern patent systems established later, in the US and elsewhere.
IIUC, U.S. patents were constructed to be an immigration policy tool. “Come to America, get paid for your knowledge!” This would encourage people who knew how to build and make things to immigrate to the U.S. Note that patents are an optional part of the constitution; not an inherent right of inventors.
The inventor is not holding on to the rights in order to collect payouts from third parties that inadvertently infringed on the invention. No, it's not a form of trolling at all.
The point of patents is that you get an exclusive monopoly for the invention for a limited time, but to get that monopoly you have to publish (as a patent) the design and it's a free for all _after_ the monopoly time has passed.
You are free to license the invention to others, but there's no requirement - it's not a part of the patent system.
Society wouldn’t advance if anyone could copy the work of others either. Gender would swoop in, create these on the cheap and completely ruin the sound that the creator intended.
So it's actually a case where patents are a good fit: the inventor gets to decide the life of their design (and make a bit of money out of it) before anyone can use it freely.