Analysis on balance: Standardisation and Patents

simo simo.sorce at
Tue Dec 2 22:04:09 UTC 2008

On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:42 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:

> GPLv2 worked in the same way too I think (though not worded as 
> explicitly as it is in v3). In general, I tend to think of sublicensing 
> as being very rare - you only really need it if you're changing the 
> license (or, at least, varying it somehow).
> > Well, in theory the whole point of IPR is that those things which are not
> > valuable (common knowledge, lacking a creative input (in copyrights) or an 
> > inventive step (patents) are in the public domain. Those things which cost 
> > money/labour to create/invent are privatized in the hope this incentivises 
> > people to invest that labour or money. If you can get the returns of that 
> > privatization without making the investment, that's a failure mode of the 
> > system, no?
> >   
> I wouldn't say so, in the same way that not getting any returns by 
> making that same investment also isn't a failure mode of the system 
> either. It's a system of risk.

If there is no investment what are you rewarding ?
A monopoly is a serious business, if there is no reason to grant one it
shouldn't be granted or you simply create a distortion in the market.
And we know how is always easier is for the wealthier to push a bit

The patent system should reward risk takers that actually made the
investment, because if you don't, in the long term you will get no

If you can get a monopoly whether you invest or not, it is only normal
that you will shift toward getting patents where investment is not
needed given that no investment == no risk.

So by allowing patents where there is no investment you just end up
negating the reason d'etre of the patents themselves: to promote


More information about the Discussion mailing list