Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: What If Intellectual Property Expired After Five Years?

Posted by Soulskill on from the many-tears-from-publishers dept.

New submitter ancientt writes "As a thought experiment, what if the constitution of the U.S. was amended so that no idea (with exceptions only for government use, like currency) could be protected from copy or use beyond January 1, 2035 for more than a five-year period. After a five-year span, any patent, software license, copyright, software NDA or other intellectual property agreement would expire. (This is not an entirely new idea, but would have had significant recent ramifications if it had been enacted in the past.) Specific terms are up for debate, but in this experiment businesses must have time to try to adjust to sell services and make the services good enough to compete with other businesses offering the same basic products. Microsoft can sell a five-year-old variant of OSX, Apple can sell Windows 2030. Cars, computers and phones would, or at least could, still be made, but manufacturers would be free to use any technology more than five years old or license new technology for a five-year competitive edge. Movie, TV and book budgets would have to adjust to the potential five-year profit span, although staggered episode or chapter releases would be legal. Play 'What if' with me. What would be the downsides? What would be the upsides?"

19 of 577 comments (clear)

  1. Not all Patents are the Same by AlexBirch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pharmaceuticals would still be in clinical trials when their patents would expire. How about we just focus on getting rid of bad patents that don't bring knowledge or insight to society?

    1. Re:Not all Patents are the Same by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about letting patent examiners determine the duration instead of keeping a fixed time for everything? Pharmaceuticals with decade long trial periods would be protected for longer, software patents (like "slide to unlock") only for a few years.

    2. Re:Not all Patents are the Same by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you leave the decision to the examiners, you'll just get the effect that each and every applicant will be unhappy with the assigned duration. Result: at least two additional office actions per application debating the correct duration for the patent in question. I am not opposed to different durations for different patent classes, but there have to be clear rules, or it'll be a hell of a mess.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:Not all Patents are the Same by tao · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then how about 5 years from clinical approval?

    4. Re:Not all Patents are the Same by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about letting patent examiners determine the duration instead of keeping a fixed time for everything?

      That would just lead to companies bribing patent examiners and the whole system would be corrupted.

    5. Re:Not all Patents are the Same by rmstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about letting patent examiners determine the duration instead of keeping a fixed time for everything?

      My personal opinion on this is that, to fix the issues around patenting of pharmaceuticals, the best is to devise a new system to substitute the one based on patents. I think it would be preferable for the state to grant monopolies after the fact. Maybe using some auction system, maybe something else. Once a possible drug has been determined as being promising, the state could contract someone to do the clinical trial, or perhaps even do it itself through funding for universities, or other organizations. Of course, this rises the specter of corruption and so on, but i think it is likely that such a system could be engineered to work a lot better than the existing one.

      This type of system already exists in other areas. Nuclear plants in most countries are owned by the state and operated by private companies. Similar arrangements exist for the production of explosives and some poisonous substances. Mining is another classic example of such a type of system.

      As things stand nowadays, the best way of sinking a promising therapy is to publish the details unpatented. This is a ridiculous state of affairs, and could be fixed by a scheme like the one above. Also, since patents expire without anything to mitigate the effects, there is an incentive to invent nonexistent illnesses and useless drugs, a behavior which is itself dangerous to public health.

    6. Re:Not all Patents are the Same by jamesh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pharmaceuticals would still be in clinical trials when their patents would expire. How about we just focus on getting rid of bad patents that don't bring knowledge or insight to society?

      I had the same thought about the pharaceuticals. Even non-pharmaceuticals can have a long time-to-market once the patent has been filed.

      A better idea would be (say) 20 years from filing or 5 years from the date of first sale, whichever is sooner. 20 years might be a bit generous... I don't know the specifics of clinical trial durations, but just a date so you couldn't just sit on the patent forever.

      With a 5 year duration, the 'bad patent' thing would probably solve itself.

    7. Re:Not all Patents are the Same by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A better idea would be not to lump in patents with copyright and so on. Patents already have far shorter expiration dates than copyright, although software patents should be nixed completely.

  2. Mixed, but overall positive. (with one exception) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On patents:

    All but the richest biggest incumbents would benefit

    On copyright:

    Large publishers and the copyright dinosaur industries would have to change for the better, society would benefit.

    Some small companies and individuals would benefit massively from more freely being able to build upon the work of others.
    Some small companies and individuals would suffer as large corporations would find new ways of screwing them over.

    On trademarks:

    It makes no sense to expire trademarks after 5 years. Society as a whole would suffer.

  3. JK Rowling would be pissed by maroberts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whether this is a downside or an upside is up to you.....

    I don't think 5 years is a long enough period for film development and recovery of costs. I do think 15-20 years, perhaps with a 10 year extension on payment of a fee would do it though.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:JK Rowling would be pissed by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why? Nobody forced anyone to buy her books. What's your problem with her getting rich for bringing enjoyment to millions of people who felt it was worth their cash?

  4. I do not mind by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the sole owner of 3 patents, I do not mind if all my patents expire tomorrow

    At that time I filed my patent for self-protection - not for profiting from the patents

    You see, the world we live today is so fucked up, that if you invent something really brand new and you do not patent it, you just _might_ get sued !

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:I do not mind by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...and most of the new drugs are small increments on existing drugs , mostly for near terminal conditions that affect mostly rich westerners

      They are in the business of 'inventing' very expensive drugs, because the current patent system encourages this ...

      Without a patent they would be trying to invent cheap large volume drugs instead ?

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    2. Re:I do not mind by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and most of the new drugs are small increments on existing drugs , mostly for near terminal conditions that affect mostly rich westerners

      They are in the business of 'inventing' very expensive drugs, because the current patent system encourages this ...

      They are in the business to make money. The most money can be made by marketing a drug that does not cure anything, but must be continued to be taken for as long as a person lives. That's their holy grail.

      Cures are useful for killing their competitor's products, but isn't a golden goose that continues laying eggs.

      IMO, pharma patent laws should be modified to steer research into what's best for the people, not best for the shareholders. Drop the extended patent terms for anything that isn't curative.

    3. Re:I do not mind by Dragon+Bait · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Excuse me? So the reason pharmaceutical companies need long patent times is because they fail often when developing drugs? Yes, that's a really good way of getting the market to work. How about reducing the protection for them so that only the best companies survive and the bad companies go away?

      The capitalistic systems of today are starting to look a lot like the old one from the USSR with one (or a few) huge players planning the development for everyone...

      Obviously you're pretty ignorant on the concept of research. Who was it that said "if I knew what I was doing it wouldn't be called research"? Even the best researchers don't know ahead of time which drugs will successfully treat the given problem with acceptable side effects.

    4. Re:I do not mind by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As the GGGP said, there are things that have a long time horizon before one can possibly recoup R&D and other investment costs - many things take much longer than 5 years. And if you factor in a decent ROI that investors will require, I see a lot of ideas never making it to market or even developed because there's very little hope of reouping investment let alone making a return.

      A greater argument for the socialization of pharmaceuticals, I have not heard.

      If the government were in charge of the pharmaceutical industry, there would be no need for a "decent ROI," nor would there be incentive to "treat" illness as opposed to cure it.

      Not-so-funny aside there - I can't understand these folks who actually believe that a for-profit drug manufacturer has any interest whatsoever in curing diseases they currently make billions off 'treating.'

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  5. Publishers would flee the US in droves by psychonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Publishers and other IP holders would flee the US in droves. Hollywood and Silicon Valley would cease to exist as world centres of filmmaking and software development, respectively. Without the obscenely long protection period afforded by current copyright and other IP laws, major publishers would no longer consider it profitable to arrange for their works to be produced in the US. They would instead move their operations to countries with IP laws favourable to their monopolies. Perhaps a better thought experiment would be if most or all countries cut their copyright and other IP terms simultaneously. If just one of them does it all that will do is hurt their competitiveness in the international IP market.

  6. Try to think sometimes by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well.. it also means that after 5 years your photos are not your anymore. So please now image photos you made 5 years ago, they could be used in the anti-diarrhea commercial! Isn't this cool?

  7. Linux would be public domain by subreality · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... and therefore free to use for any purpose without having to distribute the source.