Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 145 posts

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#31

Post by lordnacho »

moomin wrote: post #23
ekidd wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been several historical studies done on the effects of patents on innovation, and the results are mixed. For an example of the "patents may hurt innovation" side, see http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf , which argues that the steam engine patents actually held back the development of superior steam engines, reduced the total horsepower deployed, and even distracted Watt (the inventor) f…

Drug development is an interesting case, because the costs aren't associated with the research: they're associated with the safety testing. This has horribly distorting effects.

If that's the case, there's an obvious answer.

Don't have patents, have certificates of safety. That way anyone can make a drug, and show consumers that it's been tested safe.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#32

Post by wildmusings »

dickbasedregex wrote: post #22
zebrafish wrote: post #17

Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents. R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an inc…

Why can't patents have a duration? If you're the first to come up with an idea, you get 5 years head start before competitors can use your patent for their own ends. If you never have the resources to materialize your idea or can't find a seat in the market, that's unfortunate but oh well. We can't keep allowing battery technology to be held back because Exxon bought up all the patents years ago. I don't believe pate…

>Why can't patents have a duration?

They do.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#33

Post by hashkb »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #6

It's interesting to note Lexmark tried to (ab)use other kinds of so-called "intelectual property" laws earlier: the copyright law and DMCA. When they failed, they decided to use patents instead. And all this for what purpose? To prevent people from using cartridges manufactured by other companies, i.e. blocking competition and acting against free market and user rights. If this isn't abuse, I don't know what it is. I…

Also to prevent refilling a Lexmark cartridge with inexpensive third party ink.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#34

Post by jhall1468 »

ramshanker wrote: post #7

Just adding 2 words to the sentence feels more logical. "Patents Are a Big Part of Why We Can’t Own Nice Things for free."

It may feel logical, but it isn't. The Lexmark suit isn't about free products, it's about them being able to restrict what you do with a product AFTER you paid for it. You probably should read the entire article before chiming in.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#36

Post by zulln »

optimuspaul wrote: post #21
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #2

Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.

I was halfway through the article before I realized it was all about patents and not parents.

eff.org should maybe been a hint.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#37

Post by zeteo »

ekidd wrote: post #3
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #2

Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.

There have been several historical studies done on the effects of patents on innovation, and the results are mixed. For an example of the "patents may hurt innovation" side, see http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf , which argues that the steam engine patents actually held back the development of superior steam engines, reduced the total horsepower deployed, and even distracted Watt (the inventor) f…

For another famous example, the Wright brothers spent most of their latter life litigating patents [1]. Who knows what other great things they might have invented otherwise.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Patent_war

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#38

Post by mantas »

lordnacho wrote: post #31
moomin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug development is an interesting case, because the costs aren't associated with the research: they're associated with the safety testing. This has horribly distorting effects.

If that's the case, there's an obvious answer. Don't have patents, have certificates of safety. That way anyone can make a drug, and show consumers that it's been tested safe.

If someone makes a drug and proves it safe, someone else could piggyback on that and say they're making the drug the same way, thus it's safe.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#39

Post by richthegeek »

maxerickson wrote: post #25
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #6

It's interesting to note Lexmark tried to (ab)use other kinds of so-called "intelectual property" laws earlier: the copyright law and DMCA. When they failed, they decided to use patents instead. And all this for what purpose? To prevent people from using cartridges manufactured by other companies, i.e. blocking competition and acting against free market and user rights. If this isn't abuse, I don't know what it is. I…

The thing is there are printers without the stupid on the market. So the EFF is wrong, patents haven't savaged the printer marketplace, there are nice printers available that are not expensive. And it's wrong that the market will punish shitty products, Lexmark is one of the few survivors in the printer business.

Without (ab)using patents, DMCA, etc to prevent 3rd-party products their business model would not be sustainable.

If your business cannot survive without a government-granted monopoly, it's not a free market.

Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”

#40

Post by [deleted] »

maxerickson wrote: post #25
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #6

It's interesting to note Lexmark tried to (ab)use other kinds of so-called "intelectual property" laws earlier: the copyright law and DMCA. When they failed, they decided to use patents instead. And all this for what purpose? To prevent people from using cartridges manufactured by other companies, i.e. blocking competition and acting against free market and user rights. If this isn't abuse, I don't know what it is. I…

The thing is there are printers without the stupid on the market. So the EFF is wrong, patents haven't savaged the printer marketplace, there are nice printers available that are not expensive. And it's wrong that the market will punish shitty products, Lexmark is one of the few survivors in the printer business.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN