How should I have protected my invention?

[JeanPaul]

Hello everyone,

 

I have invented a new tyre formulation. I am a chemist. Not only will the tyres last longer but it will slightly reduces the gaz consumption whithout compromising the road holding. The invention consists in adding two new substances in small proportions to the mixture before the "cooking" operation. These substances are not unknown, they are pretty common, but no one had ever thought of adding them in combination in a tyre composition.

 

Suppose I could manufacture such new tyres, it would take 5 minutes using GC-MS to identify the two new components and their respective proportions.

 

Needless to say that I already filed two international patents, and hopefully in a year, you will be using them with your car wihtout even knowing.

 

What would you have done yourself?

 

What should I have done in your patentless society?

[David Ottinger]

Given that today's market is the product of interventionist policies, things like patents are part of the business model.  However, in a vountary society, I don't know if intellectual property would emerge.  

 

Certainly, contracts would still be used, thus one can put copyright claims on a product, thus whoever purchases that product implicitly agrees to that contract. 

 

So, that's a possible model one can use.

 

Another way is to use a prototype to serve as proof of concept which would allow you to promote the benefits of your idea, and then selling that concept to the highest bidder or just going around and selling teaching services to bring everyone uptodate.   Or, in the age of the internet, putting it online and granting access to the info after payment -- which again can bring us back to the copyright model mentioned above.

 

Another model is like what artists do.  They put themselves out there and ask for donations so that they can continue working in their field.  Same model you see with FDR. 

 

 

So, those are just some ideas off the top of my head. 

[MagnumPI]

Built a prototype, demonstrated the capability, sold the idea to a manufacturer. Or built them myself by pitching it to investors.

[dsayers]

What should I have done in your patentless society?

 

Your use of the word "your" here reveals the bias you were trying to conceal. Kind of like your last topic where you (a month later) came back to essentially say that unless we can tell you who will pick the cotton, you reject that slavery is immoral. Meaning you will reject any other answers provided to you that doesn't conform to your bias.

 

For the benefit of others struggling with this minutia: If what you produce is of value to people, then people will exchange value with you. Your question stems from the common faulty premise that just because somebody spends time on something, they MUST be compensated for it.

[luxfelix]

First, congratulations! 

 

Second, I don't know if you ask your questions because you have some misgivings about using a state institution such as patents, or are likewise concerned that you will be shown disdain here for your decision, but if this helps you provide value to others and profit yourself (so long as no violation of the NAP occurs of course), then I don't see why you should worry.

 

As someone who works in creative fields, the concept of intellectual property was important for me to learn about, as well as the way it currently applies to law and my industry; however, in a free society (and currently too... albeit less common), there are ways to profit from intellectual (and other) capital without the need to conform them to methods that work better with more physical forms of capital.

 

(David Ottinger provides some good examples.)

[JeanPaul]

I think you have not understood the goal of my post. I am a libertarian, so I am not saying that we need states, etc.

However, here, I provide you with a simple personal example, and you cannot come up with a concrete solution that would allow me to benefit from my invention.

 

“Contracts and copyright claims”, as mentioned David, are things that already exist. But in my case, they cannot be used to protect my work. Anyone manufacturer is free to add my two new substances in his tyre mix without asking me for permission. Ideas cannot be protected.

 

“Whoever purchases that product implicitly agrees to that contract”? But I do not sell any product. These chemical substances costs between 0.15 and 0.5 dollars for a kilo, and have been sold worldwide for decades. Or you think that Dunlop would send me a little bit of money on my Paypal account every time that add the substances to their mix?

 

“Proof of concept”? I am a chemist. I do not manufacture tyres! We did our tests, but we did not equip a car with this new formulation. This job is for the tyre manufacturer, not for me.

“Putting the idea online and granting access to the info after payment”? There are only 10 companies in the world interested in this info, and another 15 to a lesser degree. And once the formulation has been used by one of the manufacturer, why can’t they simply adopt it? They don’t need to pay me to get the information, once it is publicly known! Ideas cannot be protected. Why would anyone want to pay for something that he has not been asked any money for? I have never seen this. Even Stefan asks for money.

 

“Asking for donation”? Who would donate?  Goodyear, Continental, Bridgestone, Michelin, etc.? Or the people driving their cars? The tyre manufacturers are competing against each other. They spy at each other’s formulation, etc. Without patents, they would all of a sudden become sweet people, voluntarily sending money to small inventors, etc.? This is the Garden of Eden, you are talking about.

 

MagnumPI, you would build tyres yourself? Good luck! Investors? I don’t need any. Our small lab has already all the equipment for the kind of research we are doing. I want to keep making money with my inventions. I do not want to become a tyre manufacturer, a chemical plant, a person asking for donation. Besides, I could not. I can only do what I am capable of doing. Besides, the fact that without patents, I would suddenly become forced to do new things, to have new talents, shows that you cannot find an alternative to patents unfortunately. I have personally tried to find one, based on my own example, but have failed to find any. Maybe some people out there are multi-faceted and could write books on tyre mix formulations and do seminars, but I cannot, and do not have the time. Even my wife would not be interested in buying my books.

 

Dsayers, I said « your », simply to refer to the solution that each person will suggest here. You say that if my product is of value to people, people will exchange value with me. The problem is that I do not have a product. Imagine that my invention is equivalent to someone having discovered that vanilla can be added to cakes and ice cream, in proportions between 0.01% and 0.3%. Imagine that until this discovery, even though vanilla had been used extensively and sold for cheap, no one had ever thought of using it in culinary preparations. Who would want to exchange value with the vanilla guy? Once the world knows that a drop of vanilla adds great flavor, the guy is done with his discovery. No one will ever pay him or send him money. At best, he will have a Wikipedia page with his name on it. Maybe Oprah Winfrey will invite him once and they will eat biscuits and ice cream.

 

I expect to receive over 25 million net in royalties in the next 10 years. Do you think that this kind of money is excessive for an idea that can improve tyres? The manufacturers do not think so. Without patents, I do not think that I would be able to get even $1000 for this invention, just like you would not get much if anything with the vanilla food flavoring idea.

Is it possible that someone tells me precisely how I could make even 5 million with my improved tyre formulation without patents?

[dsayers]

Dsayers, I said « your », simply to refer to the solution that each person will suggest here.

 

You didn't say "your solution." You said "your patentless society." I see this all the time. It's a way to internally marginalize the input as personal to avoid having to address its merits. Also, the fact that you did this initially instead of in response to something somebody said demonstrates you're bringing unresolved trauma to the table. It's manipulative. You're basically saying from the onset that you cannot be convinced and everything you've said since only substantiates this.

 

I expect to receive over 25 million net in royalties in the next 10 years.

 

"...and if people won't give it to me, I'll take it from them." How do you know that this is what your effort is worth? Why wouldn't the vanilla guy be able to start his own bakery or sell the idea to an established one?

 

I wish to qualify my next question by pointing out that I accept that utilitarian arguments are subservient to the moral consideration. How do you feel about the fact that you didn't create/discover what you did in a vacuum? Tires are not new, which means you're building off of the work of others while expressing a desire to FORCIBLY prevent others from building off of the work of others. How do you rationalize this self-contradiction?

[luxfelix]

I do not want to become a tyre manufacturer, a chemical plant, a person asking for donation. Besides, I could not. I can only do what I am capable of doing. Besides, the fact that without patents, I would suddenly become forced to do new things, to have new talents, shows that you cannot find an alternative to patents unfortunately. I have personally tried to find one, based on my own example, but have failed to find any. Maybe some people out there are multi-faceted and could write books on tyre mix formulations and do seminars, but I cannot, and do not have the time. Even my wife would not be interested in buying my books.

 

I know this doesn't answer all of your questions, but if you don't want to learn new skills then you could partner with other people with those skills; it's what you do currently anyways, right?

 

Alternatively, if you still want patents (regardless of any new method that could possibly be developed), then you could sign a mutual contract with a DRO (or other such court) that agrees to use a patent system with their clients and enforceable (through exclusionary penalties should one break the agreed upon terms) among all signed parties. If someone outside of the contract uses an idea of one of the contract members, than those members could refuse to do business with that outsider as well to deter such actions without violating the NAP and remain within their circle of patent businesses.

[MagnumPI]

"I want to keep making money with my inventions" "I would suddenly become forced to do new things, to have new talents, shows that you cannot find an alternative to patents unfortunately"

I'd like to get paid without working, too. Let me know what you come up with.
 

"Even Stefan asks for money."

 

And he continually produces something people want in order to actually get any donations. From what I can gather, you don't want to do that. You want to come up with a single idea with unlimited payment.

"Ideas cannot be protected."

 

Sure can. Keep them in your head. You want protection or you want to make money?

[JeanPaul]

Dsayers, So, you do not want to address my point but instead accuse me of being manipulative, etc.? This is a very philosophical approach.

 

Why would an inventor have to become a baker?? It is not because he had the great idea to add vanilla to baked good that he can make and sell good cakes. And you think that if you had gotten the idea of adding vanilla in cookies, you could have gotten moeny from a bakery? And you think that one week later all the bakeries would not have decided to add a couple drops of vanilla in half of their baked goods?

 

Did I say that my effort was worth anything? It is worth what rich tyre manufacturing companies are ready to give me in exchange for the idea that they would not have gotten on their own.

 

I am trying to better understand your argument. Are you saying that big international companies should not be prevented from using the ideas and work of small inventors for free?

 

I invested over a million in my small lab. If I cannot get money from the tyre manufacturers, then, why should I bother trying to improve tyre mix composition?

[Bradford26]

The scale of the invention should determine your actions going forward. If the new tire is a minor improvement over normal tires, it makes more sense to sell it to a tire company. If the new tire is light years ahead of all other tires, it makes sense to gather investors and create a new tire manufacturing company.
 
Next, don't talk about the invention in public, nor reveal anything about it to anyone (like how many new chemicals and range of cost for each). A researcher who may be close to the same invention could use subtle clues to come up with it and share it on the internet.
 
Now that you've decided to sell your invention to a tire company, it is time to do the research. How much money does the new tire save for a prospective buyer? How much initial investment will it require to convert their tire factories? How long will it take before their investment in your invention will begin to pay off. It will be worth it to do a serious market analysis. The more information you have, the better equipped you'll be to maximize profit from the sale of your invention.
 
How much time and money have you invested in this invention so far? What research did you to do determine if that amount of investment would pay off? It sounds like you have a team who helped create this. Is it a business? Does the business have any other revenue?
 
If you expect (interesting word choice) to receive 25 million dollars over 10 years, doesn't it make sense to spend a small percentage of that amount to pitch the invention? I would travel to each and every tire manufacturer and pitch the invention (getting non-disclosure agreements the whole time) using all the research I've done. That would be a small price to pay for millions later.
 
Additionally, you could pitch your idea to the research and development team at a tire manufacturer. Keep the NDA and get those tires on a race car or a Tesla or anywhere with high visibility. "How are you winning so many races?" "it's the JeanPaul brand tire formula!" *money comes raining down from the sky*   
 
Use your invention to get hired at a lucrative tire company. Demonstrate your scientific brilliance and maybe become an Experimental Tire Engineer at Yokohama Tires.

 

These are a few ideas off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty more. One thing is certain though, your work has only just started. If the payoff is as great as you expect it to be, show up, dress up, and never give up!

[dsayers]

Dsayers, So, you do not want to address my point but instead accuse me of being manipulative, etc.?

 

It is manipulative to try and manage the reactions of others before they can even provide a reaction. That is an objective claim. If it is untrue, you are welcome to refute it.

 

I asked you direct questions and you refused to answer. Your adherence to your bias that violence is a valid means to an end means (as I've maintained) that you are NOT looking for voluntary alternatives, but rather confirmation of your bias. We have nothing further to discuss.

 

I'll end by addressing you bringing up investing a million dollars into a lab. I can understand why you would want to see returns on your investment. Not everybody is a savvy investor though. Not everybody is a chemist. Just because you invested a large sum doesn't mean you're entitled to succeed. If you accept that violence is immoral and put forth hard work, I hope that you will succeed. But the fact is that many investments fail and a free market needs them to so that the investments that are better can flourish. Just as the market needs competition for the sake of innovation. These again are utilitarian arguments and are not meant to supersede the fact that the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights (which is an accurate description of a patent) is self-contradictory.

[MagnumPI]

Tesla died broke as hell. Henry Ford did not. Inventors do not get rich. Producers do. Sorry...?

 

I am trying to better understand your argument. Are you saying that big international companies should not be prevented from using the ideas and work of small inventors for free?

 

I invested over a million in my small lab. If I cannot get money from the tyre manufacturers, then, why should I bother trying to improve tyre mix composition?

Yes.

You shouldn't.

[JeanPaul]

It is manipulative to try and manage the reactions of others before they can even provide a reaction. That is an objective claim. If it is untrue, you are welcome to refute it.

 

I asked you direct questions and you refused to answer. Your adherence to your bias that violence is a valid means to an end means (as I've maintained) that you are NOT looking for voluntary alternatives, but rather confirmation of your bias. We have nothing further to discuss.

 

I'll end by addressing you bringing up investing a million dollars into a lab. I can understand why you would want to see returns on your investment. Not everybody is a savvy investor though. Not everybody is a chemist. Just because you invested a large sum doesn't mean you're entitled to succeed. If you accept that violence is immoral and put forth hard work, I hope that you will succeed. But the fact is that many investments fail and a free market needs them to so that the investments that are better can flourish. Just as the market needs competition for the sake of innovation. These again are utilitarian arguments and are not meant to supersede the fact that the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights (which is an accurate description of a patent) is self-contradictory.

I did not know that I was manipulative, that I supported immoral violence and that I was a savvy investor. I guess I still have a lot of self-knowledge to learn. If your intention was not to insult me, then, I will say thank you for opening my eyes.

 

I think I answered all your questions.

 

My inventions have nothing to do with the lab that I set up. I do not invent things because I have a lab. Goodyear's lab is 100 times bigger than mine. Yet, they do not invent what I invent. I already succeeded somewhat because I get decent royalties from previous inventions in the same field. Not all chemists invent things, you know.

 

Do you condemn the desire to become very rich, have a beautiful house with an indoor swimming pool and horses? I do not force anyone to buy my inventions. It is up to them. I do not even set the prices, they set the prices themselves.

 

Suppose you do not condemn the desire to become very rich, then, since I do not deserve to become rich by just inventing things, from what I have understood, then, who does?

[JeanPaul]

"I want to keep making money with my inventions" "I would suddenly become forced to do new things, to have new talents, shows that you cannot find an alternative to patents unfortunately"

 

I'd like to get paid without working, too. Let me know what you come up with.

 

"Even Stefan asks for money."

 

And he continually produces something people want in order to actually get any donations. From what I can gather, you don't want to do that. You want to come up with a single idea with unlimited payment.

 

"Ideas cannot be protected."

 

Sure can. Keep them in your head. You want protection or you want to make money?

How can you say that I want to get paid without working? Do you know how I improve tyre formulations? I do not add a little bit of salt and pepper and shake the mix. It is through computerized modelization of tyre material. I will work for 5 years without earning a penny, and then, if I my ideas were valid, I will be able to "sell" my inventions.

 

I too continually produce improvements and small discoveries, but I just cannot see how people would be ready to donate in exchange for my improvements. Note that my work does not benefit people directly, unlike Stefan's. So, who would want to donate to me?

 

And please do not tell me that I should manufacture tyres myself. Even if I could and did, this would not prevent the giants to reproduce my improved formulations instantly. As I said, ideas cannot be protected. This is where the patents come into play.

Again, I am not against a different system, but what you have suggested cannot work in my case. Can you accept that I do not want to be employed by a company, that I want to be my own boss? Can you accept that there exist independent inventors?

 

I can keep my ideas in my head, but the tyre manufacturers do not think the same. They are happy to pay me for my inventions. Of course, they would be even happier if they could get them for free, but then, I would ask them to sell their tyres for free too.

 

"You want protection or you want to make money?" It is thanks to protection that I am actually capable of making money. Without protection, I would not have chosen to work so hard, and to take so much risk in terms of investment and time invested. I would have chosen to be employed and to work half as much. Tyres would have been very slightly inferior too.

[dsayers]

I think I answered all your questions.

 

"Tires are not new, which means you're building off of the work of others while expressing a desire to FORCIBLY prevent others from building off of the work of others. How do you rationalize this self-contradiction?" I don't see where you've answered this.

 

Not all chemists invent things, you know.

 

All I have to go on is the information you provide. You made a topic about an invention/discovery and that is what WE are talking about.

 

Do you condemn the desire to become very rich, have a beautiful house with an indoor swimming pool and horses?

 

I accept that I don't have the power to condemn anything. I do have the power to understand that the initiation of the use of force is immoral. If you do not initiate the use of force when you provide/store/spend value, then I have no opinion on how you choose to do so. But patents ARE the initiation of the use of force to artificially cull competition. So far, the only effort you've put into addressing this is to say that because you don't trust the market to compensate you, oh well.

[luxfelix]

Here's a comparison that might be helpful: 

 

In film (and other media), a professional soundtrack improves the value (subjective argument?) of the experience (hence why theaters charge more for Dolby Atmos mixes, 3D, etc.). The soundtrack is a complementary good and a result of collaboration between the studio producers of the film and the audio post house. (The composer can also sell the score again as a separate product.)

 

The collaboration is extended further to the marketing/distribution firms and venues that bring the film to the audience.

 

This industry is notorious for its use of copyright law, but there's also an option to forgo royalties (in part or in whole) in exchange for a profit percentage; this reduces some of the upfront costs of business and encourages the audio post house to take more of an interest in the overall success of the film.

 

Sure there's a risk that the film will perform poorly at the box-office, but in this way one need not worry about enforcing intellectual property laws as they are commonly done today.

 

You can also still be your own boss and seek investors/patrons to support you directly and/or sell your expertise as a consultant. (Again, David Ottinger provides some other good examples above.)

 

There's also the possibility of signing on with a DRO that requires its clients to respect patents (and do so in ways that avoid breaking the NAP...).

[Brook Warren]

So basically what I understand from the original post is this simple question:

 

"If I invent something that is easily copied, how can I prevent copying and/or guarantee I will exclusively enjoy the profits."

 

My question really is, why do you feel entitled to the profit?

And for how long do you believe you should be entitled to profit?

 

Otherwise, whatever arbitrary level of violently coerced intellectual property protection is what you get to enjoy.

 

I would never feel ok about inventing something that is simple to copy (or not simple) and somehow forging a monopoly on that idea.  It's kind of revolting to me honestly.

[J-William]

Why are you entitled to monopoly rents on an improved tire formulation?

[JeanPaul]

"Tires are not new, which means you're building off of the work of others while expressing a desire to FORCIBLY prevent others from building off of the work of others. How do you rationalize this self-contradiction?" I don't see where you've answered this.

 

 

All I have to go on is the information you provide. You made a topic about an invention/discovery and that is what WE are talking about.

 

 

I accept that I don't have the power to condemn anything. I do have the power to understand that the initiation of the use of force is immoral. If you do not initiate the use of force when you provide/store/spend value, then I have no opinion on how you choose to do so. But patents ARE the initiation of the use of force to artificially cull competition. So far, the only effort you've put into addressing this is to say that because you don't trust the market to compensate you, oh well.

How can someone build off of my work here? There are two kind of inventions: new things and improvements to things. Both are just as useful to people.

 

You do not have such power, but you could have an opinion.

 

Of course the market would not compensate me. Once the improvement to the tyre mix formula is known people simply copy it. The donation model cannot work in my case.

 

Here's a comparison that might be helpful: 

 

In film (and other media), a professional soundtrack improves the value (subjective argument?) of the experience (hence why theaters charge more for Dolby Atmos mixes, 3D, etc.). The soundtrack is a complementary good and a result of collaboration between the studio producers of the film and the audio post house. (The composer can also sell the score again as a separate product.)

 

The collaboration is extended further to the marketing/distribution firms and venues that bring the film to the audience.

 

This industry is notorious for its use of copyright law, but there's also an option to forgo royalties (in part or in whole) in exchange for a profit percentage; this reduces some of the upfront costs of business and encourages the audio post house to take more of an interest in the overall success of the film.

 

Sure there's a risk that the film will perform poorly at the box-office, but in this way one need not worry about enforcing intellectual property laws as they are commonly done today.

 

You can also still be your own boss and seek investors/patrons to support you directly and/or sell your expertise as a consultant. (Again, David Ottinger provides some other good examples above.)

 

There's also the possibility of signing on with a DRO that requires its clients to respect patents (and do so in ways that avoid breaking the NAP...).

You are talking about copyright here. There cannot be copyright on a tyre formulation improvement, even if it makes the car run better and longer.

 

So basically what I understand from the original post is this simple question:

 

"If I invent something that is easily copied, how can I prevent copying and/or guarantee I will exclusively enjoy the profits."

 

My question really is, why do you feel entitled to the profit?

And for how long do you believe you should be entitled to profit?

 

Otherwise, whatever arbitrary level of violently coerced intellectual property protection is what you get to enjoy.

 

I would never feel ok about inventing something that is simple to copy (or not simple) and somehow forging a monopoly on that idea.  It's kind of revolting to me honestly.

It takes 10 years to come up, or not, with the tyre mix improvement. The money that can be saved for the consumers is potentially billions. Billions because a few dollars a year multiplied by the number of consumers equal billions. 10 million/10 billion = 1/1000. It is not so much.

How long? I said 10 years. Patents last 20 years, but in practice, count only 10 or 15 years.

 

Yes, it is so simple that it has the potential to save 10 billion. So what should I have done, not having developed an original modelization of tyre material properties, built an expensive lab and come up with a tyre improvement that can save billions of dollars?

 

Do you know that if I had worked for a tyre group, the group would have pocketed 2 billion and would have saved the consumer only 2 billions? What is better for the consumer?

 

Here is what I will do. Since I cannot find an alternative solution to patents in my case, and since I am a libertarian and I do not want to do anything immoral, I certainly do not want to do things that revolts other libertarians, I do not want to violently coerced intellectual property protection, I do not want to forge a monopoly, I will simply abandon this invention thing. I have enough money already anyway. Please do not tell me to go work for one of these groups, I did the math for you, it is 100 times worse for the consumer, and the group would file twice as more patents than me with my stupid improvements. I am done with the tyres, and I am very serious here. I will use my lab to help out people or students and will concentrate on my 3 daughters and newborn son. I really hope I can stick to my decision.

Thank you all for your time and input, it was very enlightening. Some of you could have done it in a friendlier way, but I guess I might not have understood.

[JeanPaul]

The scale of the invention should determine your actions going forward. If the new tire is a minor improvement over normal tires, it makes more sense to sell it to a tire company. If the new tire is light years ahead of all other tires, it makes sense to gather investors and create a new tire manufacturing company.

 

Next, don't talk about the invention in public, nor reveal anything about it to anyone (like how many new chemicals and range of cost for each). A researcher who may be close to the same invention could use subtle clues to come up with it and share it on the internet.

 

Now that you've decided to sell your invention to a tire company, it is time to do the research. How much money does the new tire save for a prospective buyer? How much initial investment will it require to convert their tire factories? How long will it take before their investment in your invention will begin to pay off. It will be worth it to do a serious market analysis. The more information you have, the better equipped you'll be to maximize profit from the sale of your invention.

 

How much time and money have you invested in this invention so far? What research did you to do determine if that amount of investment would pay off? It sounds like you have a team who helped create this. Is it a business? Does the business have any other revenue?

 

If you expect (interesting word choice) to receive 25 million dollars over 10 years, doesn't it make sense to spend a small percentage of that amount to pitch the invention? I would travel to each and every tire manufacturer and pitch the invention (getting non-disclosure agreements the whole time) using all the research I've done. That would be a small price to pay for millions later.

 

Additionally, you could pitch your idea to the research and development team at a tire manufacturer. Keep the NDA and get those tires on a race car or a Tesla or anywhere with high visibility. "How are you winning so many races?" "it's the JeanPaul brand tire formula!" *money comes raining down from the sky*   

 

Use your invention to get hired at a lucrative tire company. Demonstrate your scientific brilliance and maybe become an Experimental Tire Engineer at Yokohama Tires.

 

These are a few ideas off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty more. One thing is certain though, your work has only just started. If the payoff is as great as you expect it to be, show up, dress up, and never give up!

First thank your kind words and advice. Unfortunately, the case you describe is not mine. You are talking about the romantic case of the inventor who had discovered in his garage a revolutionary tyre that will last 100,000 miles, etc.

I am talking about something very specific, ultra technical.

I do not sell my improvements to a single company, I sell them to as many company as possible, so that it benefits everyone. One can make more money with signing exclusively with one company, but this is not the route I have taken. The improvements I contribute to are measureable, but do not make cars run races.

 

"A researcher who may be close to the same invention could use subtle clues to come up with it and share it on the internet." Impossible. Besides, I always filed patents before releasing my inventions.

 

"How much money does the new tire save for a prospective buyer?" Maybe 10 billion.

 

"How much initial investment will it require to convert their tire factories?" Zero.

 

"How long will it take before their investment in your invention will begin to pay off?" No investment needed, just formula changes and adjustment. In three month, the improved formulation is in the streets.

 

"How much time and money have you invested in this invention so far?" Several million, for the lab, the patents and the rest. 20 years of my life. I literally never took a day off, never went on holiday. All I did ever since I was 15 was working on improving things, studying, modelizing materials, experimenting, etc. and having my kids.

 

"If you expect (interesting word choice) to receive 25 million dollars over 10 years, doesn't it make sense to spend a small percentage of that amount to pitch the invention?" I do not need to pitch, I just need to send the manufacturers that i already know, and 100 pages report. This is what I have done in the past. i do not even need to see them. Again, this is very technical stuff, no need to pitch or whatever.

 

"Use your invention to get hired at a lucrative tire company. Demonstrate your scientific brilliance and maybe become an Experimental Tire Engineer at Yokohama Tires." Oh no please, don't do this to me. I receive work offers daily. I am so happy not working for a company, being free exploring what I want, not having to commute, etc. Also, I do not design magical tyres, I am a chemist. I actually have been working in parallel on a completely new formulation, where you tyres would no longer be black, but this is a whole lot more complicated. I don't think I will ever succeed though. But thank you again for your enthusiasm.

[JeanPaul]

Why are you entitled to monopoly rents on an improved tire formulation?

First, do you know how long the monopoly last?

Second, if i do not have some sort of monopoly, then, how will I live from my work?

[MagnumPI]

How can you say that I want to get paid without working? Do you know how I improve tyre formulations? I do not add a little bit of salt and pepper and shake the mix. It is through computerized modelization of tyre material. I will work for 5 years without earning a penny, and then, if I my ideas were valid, I will be able to "sell" my inventions.

 

I too continually produce improvements and small discoveries, but I just cannot see how people would be ready to donate in exchange for my improvements. Note that my work does not benefit people directly, unlike Stefan's. So, who would want to donate to me?

 

And please do not tell me that I should manufacture tyres myself. Even if I could and did, this would not prevent the giants to reproduce my improved formulations instantly. As I said, ideas cannot be protected. This is where the patents come into play.

Again, I am not against a different system, but what you have suggested cannot work in my case. Can you accept that I do not want to be employed by a company, that I want to be my own boss? Can you accept that there exist independent inventors?

 

I can keep my ideas in my head, but the tyre manufacturers do not think the same. They are happy to pay me for my inventions. Of course, they would be even happier if they could get them for free, but then, I would ask them to sell their tyres for free too.

 

"You want protection or you want to make money?" It is thanks to protection that I am actually capable of making money. Without protection, I would not have chosen to work so hard, and to take so much risk in terms of investment and time invested. I would have chosen to be employed and to work half as much. Tyres would have been very slightly inferior too.

If the manufacturers will pay for your ideas then there's the end of it. That's how you make money. You want to be paid by everyone who uses an idea. Ideas are not consumable.

[JeanPaul]

I know this doesn't answer all of your questions, but if you don't want to learn new skills then you could partner with other people with those skills; it's what you do currently anyways, right?

 

Alternatively, if you still want patents (regardless of any new method that could possibly be developed), then you could sign a mutual contract with a DRO (or other such court) that agrees to use a patent system with their clients and enforceable (through exclusionary penalties should one break the agreed upon terms) among all signed parties. If someone outside of the contract uses an idea of one of the contract members, than those members could refuse to do business with that outsider as well to deter such actions without violating the NAP and remain within their circle of patent businesses.

You suggest I partner with people to manufacture tyres? But my inventions are just a very small part of the tyre manufacturing. You suggest I partner with someone who will set up a donation system for my inventions? But my inventions potentially interest only 15 people in the world. You need a lot more than 15 donators to make a living. Besides, do you see Michelin donating? This is not quite their business model.

 

Ok, suppose Michelin is with DRO A, and so am I. Goodyear is with DRO B, from another country. What do we tell Goodyear? Remove the stuff from your tyres! But these companies are already starting law suits against each other constantly. With all these DROs and tons of claims, from thousands of inventions, this would be complete chaos.

 

I always thought that patents were not so bad, and that it was impossible to come up with anything else that can work remotely as well. The alternatives you have given me so far lead me to completely stop doing what I do.

 

Let me try one more time: my customers are big corporations who file patents on a daily basis. The only way for me to sell them something is either by being employed by one of them or using a method to deter them to use my work for free. There is a benefit for the community: my improvements benefit the entire community, as opposed to the buyers of a single brand. Because I do not grant a single corporation the monopoly, the corporation cannot use its acquired monopoly to sell its product more expensive.

 

I sell (I do not set the prices) for, say, 25 million (maybe more if I am lucky) an improvement that saves the consumer, say, 10 billion (a couple dollars over the lifetime of each set of tyres incorporating the improvement, maybe more, maybe $10). The manufacturers do not make money on the invention. They just take the invention because without taking it they have a tiny disadvantage.

Let's examine the case where I had worked for one of the manufacturers (provided I had be willing to work as hard, which I doubt). The company would have paid me in salary over 10 years, something like 1 or 2 million, say. it would have sold its tyres slightly more. The consumer of that company would have saved maybe 1 billion, the company would have pocketed maybe 500 million.

 

The balances are:

The independent inventor solution: 10 billion saved by the consumer, 50 million taken from the consumers in total

The employed inventor solution: 1 billion saved by consumer, only a tenth of the consumers benefiting from the improvement, 500 million taken from the consumers in total.

The donation, lectures, published papers solution: 10 billion saved by the consumer, 50 thousands taken from I don't know in total

 

Note that 50 million out of 10 billion, and more, is merely 0.5%. So, I offer the consumers the possibility to save, say $10 each, provided that they give me 5 cents. They get to keep $9.95.

 

If I understand you all, the only moral solution is when the consumer gets to keep $9.999.

[JeanPaul]

Tesla died broke as hell. Henry Ford did not. Inventors do not get rich. Producers do. Sorry...?

 

Yes.

 

You shouldn't.

Are you happy Tesla died broke? Tesla invented fluorescent lights, the induction motor, the Tesla coil, used in TVs, the AC current, the 3 phase current, just to name a few.

[MagnumPI]

Are you happy Tesla died broke? Tesla invented fluorescent lights, the induction motor, the Tesla coil, used in TVs, the AC current, the 3 phase current, just to name a few.

What does my happiness have to do with anything? By the way, he had patents.

[Bradford26]

A patent is welfare for people who do not have the ability to convert their invention into cash or the capacity to continually innovate.

 

Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions.

 

The idea of patenting an invention and then collecting huge sums of money over a long period of time has always seemed like a get-rich-quick scheme to me. Unfortunately, the current system forces you to patent your inventions so that someone else doesn't wield the power against you.

 

JeanPaul, if your company has been founded and organized around the patent model, then the company may have no ability to convert inventions into profit without patents. That's completely understandable. Why would you do it any differently, when patents are just about the only way to make money from an invention? 

 

Ultimately, asking how inventions would work in a free society is like asking how cotton will be picked without slavery. We don't know. Nobody does. We have some ideas. We only know for sure what is immoral and worth standing up for.

 

The question you should be asking is, "In the absence of patents, how would the structure and decisions of my company be different?

[shirgall]

Patents have turned into a modern form of protectionism, especially for big-moneyed special interests. I really like this article about it from the Center for Economic and Policy Research:

 

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/drug-patents-are-protectionism-why-does-the-nyt-feel-the-need-for-quotes

 

(Take the organization with a grain of salt, though, they have Danny Glover of all people on their Board of Directors.)

[JeanPaul]

A patent is welfare for people who do not have the ability to convert their invention into cash or the capacity to continually innovate.

 

Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions.

 

The idea of patenting an invention and then collecting huge sums of money over a long period of time has always seemed like a get-rich-quick scheme to me. Unfortunately, the current system forces you to patent your inventions so that someone else doesn't wield the power against you.

 

JeanPaul, if your company has been founded and organized around the patent model, then the company may have no ability to convert inventions into profit without patents. That's completely understandable. Why would you do it any differently, when patents are just about the only way to make money from an invention? 

 

Ultimately, asking how inventions would work in a free society is like asking how cotton will be picked without slavery. We don't know. Nobody does. We have some ideas. We only know for sure what is immoral and worth standing up for.

 

The question you should be asking is, "In the absence of patents, how would the structure and decisions of my company be different?

There is no reason to assume that inventive people should also be successful entrepreneurs.

You present the disadvantages of patents, but you forget the advantages.

 

Patents motivate inventors, at least they motivate me.

 

No one can invent new things, great things year after year. One gets only a few good inventions in a lifetime, except for great inventors like Tesla, etc. I personally consider than a good invention is more interesting to people than a musical hit.

 

"Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions." I am very familiar with the patent system, but I do not understand this.

 

I would not have minded organizing my business around something else than patents, but I could not, nor could anyone around.

 

In the absence of patents, all other things being equal, I would have done something else, like growing potatoes.

What does my happiness have to do with anything? By the way, he had patents.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you found normal that Tesla was poor while Ford was rich, since I was under the impression that people consider here that producing is noble, whereas inventing is noble only as long as it is for free.

If the manufacturers will pay for your ideas then there's the end of it. That's how you make money. You want to be paid by everyone who uses an idea. Ideas are not consumable.

I want to be paid for my work, that is right.

[shirgall]

Patents motivate inventors, at least they motivate me.

 

Instead of focusing on motivation, though, let's consider those that benefit and those that are harmed. Patents benefit first-movers and they benefit those large organizations that can build licensable portfolios that create barriers to entries into certain industries. For a couple of decades IBM collected a "logical logging" tax from anyone that needed to properly handle database transactions. The big guys like Oracle, Microsoft, et al. had their own patent portfolios to do horse swap agreements with. The little guys, like the MySQLs and Postgreses, had to live in fear of being sued. They had to take defensive measures against a piece of paper to make any inroads. They didn't spend time trying to make logical logging better, they spent time making their own system do logical logging differently enough to not get sued.

 

I am more motivated to make something better than to make something that won't get me sued.

 

I once worked in an organization where a lot of people were dedicated to analyzing patents to make sure they didn't cover what we were doing or planning to do. What a colossal waste. What a colossal hurdle for someone else to climb if they wanted to make products in the same industry. This is the inhibition alluded to. Some of your time and money has to be spent on dealing with patents and developing your own. I have a couple of patents under my belt, and they were not a good use of my time (which is why my employer had to use both the carrot of bonuses and the stick of "all must at least make the attempt"), and they actually hurt my reputation with the open source software industry.

 

Software patents are of course an egregious case, but the principles are the same for other areas that are patented.

 

ObligatoryAppealToAuthority -> I used to be one of the managers of the development of what was once the fastest ad hoc database in the world.

[Bradford26]

There is no reason to assume that inventive people should also be successful entrepreneurs.

You present the disadvantages of patents, but you forget the advantages.

 

Patents motivate inventors, at least they motivate me.

 

No one can invent new things, great things year after year. One gets only a few good inventions in a lifetime, except for great inventors like Tesla, etc. I personally consider than a good invention is more interesting to people than a musical hit.

 

"Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions." I am very familiar with the patent system, but I do not understand this.

 

I would not have minded organizing my business around something else than patents, but I could not, nor could anyone around.

 

In the absence of patents, all other things being equal, I would have done something else, like growing potatoes.

 

Thanks for your feedback!

 

"There is no reason to assume that inventive people should also be successful entrepreneurs." I agree. If you're not one of the entrepreneurs, outsource that job. The modern system forces you to outsource to the coercive system of the government. When you're forced to interact with a coercive system, morality is out the window, so you're not a bad person for getting a patent.

 

"No one can invent new things, great things year after year." Successful companies manage to innovate over a long period of time. Maybe the only way to have long-term success as an inventor is to associate with a team of individuals or a large company. I don't know. Would there even be isolated inventors in the absence of patents?

 

"Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions." What I meant by this was that, without the guns of the state enforcing patents, effective processes would be developed over time to solve the problem peacefully. Organizations might pitch inventions for inventors, or provide a framework for them to do it themselves.

 

"I would not have minded organizing my business around something else than patents, but I could not, nor could anyone around." I agree.

 

"Patents motivate inventors, at least they motivate me... In the absence of patents, all other things being equal, I would have done something else, like growing potatoes." Your second option was growing potatoes?   People want to invest in cost saving inventions. It's win-win! As a company, I would want to make sure that I was paying the person who originally developed an idea, instead of a copycat who was just trying to profit from someone else's invention.   

 

As an inventor, the motivation may persist, since patents may just be replaced with whatever peaceful method the free market comes up with.

[JeanPaul]

Thanks for your feedback!

 

"There is no reason to assume that inventive people should also be successful entrepreneurs." I agree. If you're not one of the entrepreneurs, outsource that job. The modern system forces you to outsource to the coercive system of the government. When you're forced to interact with a coercive system, morality is out the window, so you're not a bad person for getting a patent.

 

"No one can invent new things, great things year after year." Successful companies manage to innovate over a long period of time. Maybe the only way to have long-term success as an inventor is to associate with a team of individuals or a large company. I don't know. Would there even be isolated inventors in the absence of patents?

 

"Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions." What I meant by this was that, without the guns of the state enforcing patents, effective processes would be developed over time to solve the problem peacefully. Organizations might pitch inventions for inventors, or provide a framework for them to do it themselves.

 

"I would not have minded organizing my business around something else than patents, but I could not, nor could anyone around." I agree.

 

"Patents motivate inventors, at least they motivate me... In the absence of patents, all other things being equal, I would have done something else, like growing potatoes." Your second option was growing potatoes?   People want to invest in cost saving inventions. It's win-win! As a company, I would want to make sure that I was paying the person who originally developed an idea, instead of a copycat who was just trying to profit from someone else's invention.   

 

As an inventor, the motivation may persist, since patents may just be replaced with whatever peaceful method the free market comes up with.

Why should I associate with entrepreneurs? I like it just like that. Besides, I am already a small entrepreneur. Any good system should be such that a guy alike can choose to work on his own or not, you see what I mean. Switching for a system where I would lose some or all my liberty is not an improvement, as far as I am concerned.

 

I am not concerned about innovating over a long period of time. This is what I have been doing since I was 20. I was able to make a living out of it.

 

"Would there even be isolated inventors in the absence of patents?" A system where the small independent inventors (there are a lot) would disappear would be sad, I personally think.

 

"As an inventor, the motivation may persist, since patents may just be replaced with whatever peaceful method the free market comes up with." I do not want to sound rude, but this is wishful thinking to me, since you are all miles away from finding a better alternative.

Instead of focusing on motivation, though, let's consider those that benefit and those that are harmed. Patents benefit first-movers and they benefit those large organizations that can build licensable portfolios that create barriers to entries into certain industries. For a couple of decades IBM collected a "logical logging" tax from anyone that needed to properly handle database transactions. The big guys like Oracle, Microsoft, et al. had their own patent portfolios to do horse swap agreements with. The little guys, like the MySQLs and Postgreses, had to live in fear of being sued. They had to take defensive measures against a piece of paper to make any inroads. They didn't spend time trying to make logical logging better, they spent time making their own system do logical logging differently enough to not get sued.

 

I am more motivated to make something better than to make something that won't get me sued.

 

I once worked in an organization where a lot of people were dedicated to analyzing patents to make sure they didn't cover what we were doing or planning to do. What a colossal waste. What a colossal hurdle for someone else to climb if they wanted to make products in the same industry. This is the inhibition alluded to. Some of your time and money has to be spent on dealing with patents and developing your own. I have a couple of patents under my belt, and they were not a good use of my time (which is why my employer had to use both the carrot of bonuses and the stick of "all must at least make the attempt"), and they actually hurt my reputation with the open source software industry.

 

Software patents are of course an egregious case, but the principles are the same for other areas that are patented.

 

ObligatoryAppealToAuthority -> I used to be one of the managers of the development of what was once the fastest ad hoc database in the world.

The little guys did not have to wait for a very long time before the patent was over I bet.

The problem I see is that patent examiners are not very good. It is their job not to grant crazy patents. "Software" patents are indeed no different.

[luxfelix]

You are talking about copyright here. There cannot be copyright on a tyre formulation improvement, even if it makes the car run better and longer.

 

From what I understand, copyright and patents are both forms of intellectual property; what is the fundamental difference between the two?

 

You suggest I partner with people to manufacture tyres? But my inventions are just a very small part of the tyre manufacturing. You suggest I partner with someone who will set up a donation system for my inventions? But my inventions potentially interest only 15 people in the world. You need a lot more than 15 donators to make a living. Besides, do you see Michelin donating? This is not quite their business model.

 

Ok, suppose Michelin is with DRO A, and so am I. Goodyear is with DRO B, from another country. What do we tell Goodyear? Remove the stuff from your tyres! But these companies are already starting law suits against each other constantly. With all these DROs and tons of claims, from thousands of inventions, this would be complete chaos.

 

I always thought that patents were not so bad, and that it was impossible to come up with anything else that can work remotely as well. The alternatives you have given me so far lead me to completely stop doing what I do.

 

Let me try one more time: my customers are big corporations who file patents on a daily basis. The only way for me to sell them something is either by being employed by one of them or using a method to deter them to use my work for free. There is a benefit for the community: my improvements benefit the entire community, as opposed to the buyers of a single brand. Because I do not grant a single corporation the monopoly, the corporation cannot use its acquired monopoly to sell its product more expensive.

 

I sell (I do not set the prices) for, say, 25 million (maybe more if I am lucky) an improvement that saves the consumer, say, 10 billion (a couple dollars over the lifetime of each set of tyres incorporating the improvement, maybe more, maybe $10). The manufacturers do not make money on the invention. They just take the invention because without taking it they have a tiny disadvantage.

Let's examine the case where I had worked for one of the manufacturers (provided I had be willing to work as hard, which I doubt). The company would have paid me in salary over 10 years, something like 1 or 2 million, say. it would have sold its tyres slightly more. The consumer of that company would have saved maybe 1 billion, the company would have pocketed maybe 500 million.

 

The balances are:

The independent inventor solution: 10 billion saved by the consumer, 50 million taken from the consumers in total

The employed inventor solution: 1 billion saved by consumer, only a tenth of the consumers benefiting from the improvement, 500 million taken from the consumers in total.

The donation, lectures, published papers solution: 10 billion saved by the consumer, 50 thousands taken from I don't know in total

 

Note that 50 million out of 10 billion, and more, is merely 0.5%. So, I offer the consumers the possibility to save, say $10 each, provided that they give me 5 cents. They get to keep $9.95.

 

If I understand you all, the only moral solution is when the consumer gets to keep $9.999.

 

I'm describing options from what I've learned about how free markets work, as well as my limited experience interacting with others for mutual gain.

 

In your example, Goodyear may or may not have agreed to use and respect a patent system. If they signed with a DRO that does not acknowledge patents, then you could try to work cooperatively with them for future gains or refuse to share any future discoveries with them etc. until they agree to acknowledge your patents.

 

Thank you for your clarification. If that's the way you feel, then continue to work with patents. I do not fault you for using them now, and even in a free society I would not fault you for using them; patent systems do not have to be the casus belli they oft become, and if you continue to profit from a patent system without inflicting violence on others than more power to you! 

 

One more example I would like to share: Patents/copyrights are not used in the fashion industry, and yet there are many examples of wealthy couturiers. They actively copy each other and do not fear losing profits to knock-off brands.

 

I want you to succeed without misgivings because you've expressed your concerns and intent to be moral, and you obviously have the know-how to invent and profit from your work; that is the purpose of this thread is it not?

[shirgall]

The little guys did not have to wait for a very long time before the patent was over I bet.

The problem I see is that patent examiners are not very good. It is their job not to grant crazy patents. "Software" patents are indeed no different.

 

The logical logging patent was enforced for 22 years.

[MagnumPI]

"As an inventor, the motivation may persist, since patents may just be replaced with whatever peaceful method the free market comes up with." I do not want to sound rude, but this is wishful thinking to me, since you are all miles away from finding a better alternative.

 

What makes you think we want an alternative? I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly do not want them to be replaced by anything.