Optional Patent System Incentive Opportunity?

There is something about the incentive system for patents that just does not seem right.

The goal appears to be to issues patents so as to encourage both technology and business.

The problem seems to be the use of the legal system as part of the incentive

machinery. The legal system ,as far as criminal and tort laws, seem to be 

designed to discourage behavior. Its not obvious it is best suited to participate

in the encouragement of anything like the spread of technology. 

Consider two semiconductor companies. Suppose someone at Linear Technology discovers and

patents a great circuit. In another company like National Semiconductor, the

engineers are highly discouraged from even knowing about this great new invention. If

it can be proven that engineers knew about an invention, and if a court finds that a

patent has be violated, the penalties will be much greater. So engineers are expected

by their legal departments to remain as much in the dark as possible in terms of the latest 

inventions.

Engineers are strongly encouraged to find ways not use an invention, even when 

the alternative is far inferior. The actual issuing of the patent seems to make it

every engineer's job to find a way to not use it. Is this how things get done 

in science? If a scientist makes a great discovery, is ever other scientist in 

the world being legally encouraged to not adopt and built upon this great discovery?

Now the patent process needs some sort of incentive machinery. Some how, the expense required

to develop the invention needs to be reimburse. But right now, legal means are being used to

do this. In effect, every patent owner is playing a little bit of the "Patent Troll" role. 

Use someone's invention, pay up, or risk being taken to court, and legally being shut down. 

Is there better alternative? Perhaps?

Suppose the IRS tax laws where written so that National Semiconductor had an 

double financial incentive to use a great invention from Linear Technology? 

Only a very small percent of patents are money makers. Suppose the tax laws were written 

so that if National Semiconductor is actually making money off of a Linear Technology 

invention, they would have an attractive tax incentive to voluntarily send some 

"R+D reimbursement" to Linear Technology. Make the tax incentive something like giving 

National Semiconductor a choice between either sending a dollar to the IRS as income taxes, 

or send 80 cents to Linear Technology as "R+D reimbursement".

Now make it so that in order for National Semiconductor to take advantage of this

double incentive, National Semiconductor would have to prove how much money they 

are actually making per year off of the invention. This would therefore entitled 

them to send a small proportion of that amount to Linear Technology as "R+D reimbursement"

to realize this special tax incentive. 

One thing, the IRS "appears" to encourage anything that increases their 

tax revenue. In the special case where a particular patent is actually making money 

for an industry, could this be used by the IRS to actually promote tax revenue? 

Inventions can create whole new industries. 

Engineers should be able to adopt and build upon any great idea that comes

along. And being able to freely make money off of any invention certainly 

speeds up that process. The idea is to effectively encourage National Semiconductor, 

Linear Technology, and the IRS, to all actually make as much money as possible 

off of the invention. This could shift the emphasis in the patent system from 

the quantity of patents to the quality of patents. 

The present patent laws need not be touched. Only money making patents would

be affected. All the users of the invention would voluntary send as much money to the 

patent owner as the IRS would allow them. Make it so everyone using the invention will 

try to make as much money as possible, and do it as fast as possible, to enjoy this double 

financial incentive.

For the few quality patents, this need only be optionally applied. For the majority of

patents, leave the present patent rules as they are. Think of what this could mean for 

patent owners. For the high quality patents, the patent owner now would only have

to sell a known patent user on the double financial benefits to using the invention as

much as possible. 

                                      ...Don Sauer 10/26/09  dsauersanjose@aol.com