Lot of comments here about exercise and weight loss.
Just reminding everyone that exercise is important whether or not you lose weight. The 30 mins a day recommendations are well documented to improve heart health, reduce diabetes risk, reduce risk for many cancers etc.
Whether you are fat or lean, regular exercise improves your health.
The binary nature of choosing between "obvious" and "non-obvious" is the problem.
My suggestion is to make Patents variable.
Patents should be judged on 2 things:
- the amount of effort that went into developing the invention
- the degree of innovation
Based on those 2 items, you would:
- Have variable durations - 1 to 20 years.
- Have variable licensing levels, set the appropriate fees. $10 to $ 1 billion
So, a trivial invention created in a morning would be awarded 12 months and a low fee.
A major ground breaking cancer treatment that took years to develop would be awarded 20 years and large licensing fees.
This creates fairness between effort and reward.
- the amount of effort that went into developing the invention
- the degree of innovation
Based on those 2 items, you would:
- Have variable durations - 1 to 20 years.
- Have variable licensing levels, set the appropriate fees. $10 to $ 1 billion
So, a trivial invention created in a morning would be awarded 12 months and a low fee.
A major ground breaking cancer treatment that took years to develop would be awarded 20 years and large licensing fees.
Patents should be variable. Patents should be graded from "Small enhancement" to "Major improvement".
Then royalties could be applied on a sliding scale.
This would solve the problem of minor patents invoking huge penalties.
We need to acknowledge that there are different levels of invention.
From minor enhancements to ground breaking innovations.
The patent system should be adapted to reflect this. 12 month patents for small innovations, 16 year patents for major breakthroughs.
I think we should change the system to have different levels of patents.
Patents would be on a scale.
Some patents would be granted for only 12 months with a small level of fees.
Others would be granted for 18 years with exclusive rights.
My suggestion for reforming the Patent System is this:
The problem is that awarding a Patent is binary situation. You either have the patent or you don't.
An improvement would to be to put patents on a scale.
A trivial obvious invention would be granted "Level 1" patent rights. It would have rights to claim a low level of fees.
A ground-breaking invention that had years of research would be granted "Level 10" patent rights. It would have complete exclusivity in the marketplace.
Patents would work much better if there was a way to set licensing fees in proportion to the amount of innovation in the Patent.
Trivial patents should be worth trivial amounts.
Earth shattering efficiency enhancements that take years of research should be worth 100s of millions.
The Patent Office should be allowed and required to set this fee level.
Then we could stop arguing whether 1-click is patentable, and instead discuss what it should be worth.
Slashdot Mirror
Lot of comments here about exercise and weight loss. Just reminding everyone that exercise is important whether or not you lose weight. The 30 mins a day recommendations are well documented to improve heart health, reduce diabetes risk, reduce risk for many cancers etc. Whether you are fat or lean, regular exercise improves your health.
The binary nature of choosing between "obvious" and "non-obvious" is the problem.
My suggestion is to make Patents variable.
Patents should be judged on 2 things:
- the amount of effort that went into developing the invention
- the degree of innovation
Based on those 2 items, you would:
- Have variable durations - 1 to 20 years.
- Have variable licensing levels, set the appropriate fees. $10 to $ 1 billion
So, a trivial invention created in a morning would be awarded 12 months and a low fee.
A major ground breaking cancer treatment that took years to develop would be awarded 20 years and large licensing fees. This creates fairness between effort and reward.
My suggestion is to make Patents variable.
Patents should be judged on 2 things:
- the amount of effort that went into developing the invention
- the degree of innovation
Based on those 2 items, you would:
- Have variable durations - 1 to 20 years.
- Have variable licensing levels, set the appropriate fees. $10 to $ 1 billion
So, a trivial invention created in a morning would be awarded 12 months and a low fee.
A major ground breaking cancer treatment that took years to develop would be awarded 20 years and large licensing fees.
This creates fairness between effort and reward.
Patents should be variable. Patents should be graded from "Small enhancement" to "Major improvement". Then royalties could be applied on a sliding scale. This would solve the problem of minor patents invoking huge penalties.
We need to acknowledge that there are different levels of invention.
From minor enhancements to ground breaking innovations.
The patent system should be adapted to reflect this. 12 month patents for small innovations, 16 year patents for major breakthroughs.
I think we should change the system to have different levels of patents. Patents would be on a scale. Some patents would be granted for only 12 months with a small level of fees. Others would be granted for 18 years with exclusive rights.
My suggestion for reforming the Patent System is this:
The problem is that awarding a Patent is binary situation. You either have the patent or you don't.
An improvement would to be to put patents on a scale.
A trivial obvious invention would be granted "Level 1" patent rights. It would have rights to claim a low level of fees.
A ground-breaking invention that had years of research would be granted "Level 10" patent rights. It would have complete exclusivity in the marketplace.
Patents would work much better if there was a way to set licensing fees in proportion to the amount of innovation in the Patent. Trivial patents should be worth trivial amounts. Earth shattering efficiency enhancements that take years of research should be worth 100s of millions. The Patent Office should be allowed and required to set this fee level. Then we could stop arguing whether 1-click is patentable, and instead discuss what it should be worth.