Subject: Re: "incentive void" (was Re: A different patent covenant...)
From: simo <s@ssimo.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:09:26 -0400

On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 08:38 -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> Ben Tilly wrote:
> > No, I don't understand why I'd have to concede anything in fairness.
> > I'm not redefining prior art.  I'm saying that if your implementation
> > depends in an essential way on technologies that have been on the
> > market less than 10 years, then you won't be granted the patent at
> > all.  It is an additional bar that patents would have to pass.
> >
> 
> That would be a disaster.
> 
> In many interesting cases, new technologies are critical enablers:
> the transistor, the integrated circuit, gene amplification, public
> key cryptography,  the in-dash cigarette lighter, fiber-optic cable,
> the telephone, AC power transmission, the internal combustion
> engine, etc.

Can you give me some examples of technologies these things you mention
depended on, that were essential, and were available for less then 10
(or 7 or 5) years?

Just as an example the transistor was invented in 1947, and the
integrated circuit which obviously depend on the transistor was invented
in 1958, Ben test would not prevent a patent for the Integrated Circuit
invention.

> Following the breakthrough, tremendous economic growth
> follows when many competitors invest heavily in finding
> newly possible applications, with patent incentives firmly
> on their side to support that speculation.

I think that "essential" is a very important condition in Ben proposal,
have you considered it?

Simo.