I heard something like Microsoft wanted to reduce the patent system, but that they have to patent because their competitors do.
If they said that (I'm not sure they did, but I heard someone say they did), then do you think that that is a reason or an excuse to patent? I think it's an excuse, personally.
However, I have been the subject of much ridicule (among some libertarians even) for suggesting that Microsoft shouldn't patent (after all, taking people to court for a victimless crime, nonetheless, isn't a passive act even if the State is the one who is the aggressor) if they wish to be more ethical.
I think they are excuses but sometimes very understandable ones. The barrier to entry in many markets means that patents are potentially required for a viable business model. For instance, without eliminating the FDA eliminating drug patents would be disastrous for those companies--most of their viability is dependent on temporary monopoly [in the US]. The cost to develop any medical item that requires clinical trials reaches into 8 figures presently (due to regulation), without patents they would never likely recoup that investment. The two go hand and hand and any argument against one must be brought against the other to have a logical foundation.
Of course Kinsella has written extensively on this, but yes, in essence, you can't really blame anyone for getting a patent if for no other reason than to ensure that they are not prevented from continuing to use their own device or process. These are sometimes termed "protective patents", in that it's a patent simply to protect you from someone else getting a patent and then preventing you from using your own creation.
However, just because you have a patent, doesn't mean you are obliged to go around threatening to sue people who use your patented design. You could easily publicize the fact that you will never go after anyone for patent infringement and that you encourage others to use and build upon your design, and that you hope they will act in the same manner. This may be the easiest way to effectively put a design in the the "public domain" as it were.
Here's a nice little collection:
Well I see no "in principle" reason why someone can't agree with someone else to never use a certain design or to pay an indemnity if he does subsequently do so, so I don't think patents are per se unreasonable.
John James:These are sometimes termed "protective patents", in that it's a patent simply to protect you from someone else getting a patent and then preventing you from using your own creation.
Curiosity makes me ask--what is the term for patents specifically for the opposite reason--i.e. you don't even produce the item but you litigate enormously to protect the patent. Want an example? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/business/23medronic.html Dr. Michelson has been living very well off his patents.
This is a well known suit in my line of business--and the inventor is much maligned for the breadth of the claims in his patents. Apparently the intentions are contagious as the company that bought the patents went a similar route (different patent in this case, same "inventor"): http://ryortho.com/fda.php?news=1449_Medtronic-Wins-Phase-One-NuVasive-Vows-Appeals
Note that historically the patent may well have been submitted/issued prior to the device market release, but the infringing party released their product substantially earlier than a similar product from the suing company. Personally I have no love or connection with either company but can't help but feel sorry for Nuvasive being effectively sued for their ingenuity.
BiPolarMoment:Curiosity makes me ask--what is the term for patents specifically for the opposite reason--i.e. you don't even produce the item but you litigate enormously to protect the patent.
It sounds like you might be under the impression there are different patent term lengths depending on why you want the patent. This is not the case. As for the term length, again, this is Kinsella's area of expertise, so I let him go into how it varies...
Where did the patent term come from?
Optimal Patent and Copyright Term Length
Reducing the Cost of IP Law
And as for this "pharmaceuticals NEED them!" argument:
Pharmaceutical “Printers” and Patents
It sounds like you might be under the impression there are different patent term lengths depending on why you want the patent.
Not quite, I was only asking if there was an industry term for a patent that is sought for the sake of the future litigation rather than as a result of a product development cycle. i.e. there may be no product (or worse, the product as illustrated wouldn't even work) but the claims are broad enough to win infringement cases. Not that it's a "different" patent just if there was a name for that activity. Predatory patenting?
I don't think we disagree. I'm not trying to make a case for IP in the medical field but rather that the benefits of getting rid of patents don't paint how much better still the consumer would be if we were also absent the drunken heavy handedness of FDA regulations. It's a feedback loop where the big boys that can throw their money around have their interests in maintaining both systems to restrict market entry.