[betterth]

That and a 2 year window would mean that companies would have to file in such a way that their patent is granted right before they go to market.

If the patent gets filed a year before they go to market, their market time is halved.

[jsz0]

Isn't that far worse for innovation? In this case we would have the original iPhone shipping in 2012 instead of 2007.

[DanBC]

Well, 2 years was just off the cuff. The aim is to allow companies to innovate, and get benefits from that innovation and from disclosing that innovation.

I was ignoring all the paperwork stuff before the device goes to market, so this two years is from product launch. Maybe that's a little bit short.

Another idea is to only allow patent protections for active products. Thus, if you're making and selling a widget you can use patents; but if you made and tried to sell a widget, and failed, you cannot sit on the patent for years and extract money from anyone who comes after you who is selling a different widget that happens to infringe a patent you own.

I don't know - I recognise the need to protect the hard work that people do, and to give them incentives to innovate, and to reward them for releasing those innovations to the public, but the current system is now thoroughly broken.

I also recognise there's considerable bias in the reporting. Maybe there are some small inventors who use patents for what they're meant for.

[greyfade]

I would say no: The short patent period will force them to improve on their inventions at a rapid pace to keep ahead of their competition. It might mean a two-year development cycle, but technology will progress rapidly.

That, as opposed to a company sitting on their patent for 20 years, filing a continuation, and letting the market stagnate while everyone else waits for the patents to expire so we can actually make some progress.

[betterth]

You're ignoring the fact that it dramatically raises the risk in the venture. When you only have a limited time to profit the risk that you won't profit skyrockets.

It'd likely affect funding at every level as investors realize quickly the dramatically increased risk. Who wants to invest in a company that will be out-competed in two years?

It would likely drive a lot of players out of those markets, bigger players who naturally move more slowly with their conservative product development cycles.

Not that any of that is explicitly bad, but it's certainly a big change.