Edit: Changed title to be more accurate.

Also here is the summary from Wikipedia on what Post-scarcity means:

Post-scarcity is a theoretical economic situation in which most goods can be produced in great abundance with minimal human labor needed, so that they become available to all very cheaply or even freely. Post-scarcity does not mean that scarcity has been eliminated for all goods and services but that all people can easily have their basic survival needs met along with some significant proportion of their desires for goods and services. Writers on the topic often emphasize that some commodities will remain scarce in a post-scarcity society.

  • masterspaceEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    How is the royalty rate determined?

    How was 20 years decided for patent lifetime? This is an implementation detail to be argued about to find a fair formula.

    How are cheap to manufacture/replicate inventions handled? With a low royalty rate the inventor may not recoup costs for a valuable patent.

    Again, this is a matter of determining a fair mathematical formula that rewards inventors appropriately depending on the amount of sales.

    Also, for comparison how does our current patent system ensure that inventors recoup costs on valuable patents? How does our current patent system reward downstream inventions and ideas? You seem to have lofty goals for a new system that our current system doesn’t address.

    How are products with multiple patents handled?

    Again, implementation detail, but if multiple ideas contribute to the same product then the inventors of both would get rewarded.

    How are patent fees enforced?

    What patent fees? We’re talking about taxing products / services / corporate profits and then using that money to reward inventors.

    Why would a company publish a patent in your system? They can be 1st to the market and be the only ones in the market until their competitors reverse engineer their patent.

    Because 6 months later when it’s reverse engineered any competitor will be able to recreate it. If your idea is so unique and complex that you don’t think it can be reverse engineered then fine, keep it as a trade secret, that’s already how our current system works.

    • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
      22·
      9 months ago

      This is an implementation detail to be argued about to find a fair formula.

      I thought your plan was simplifying things and getting lawyers out of it, guess not.

      Again, this is a matter of determining a fair mathematical formula that rewards inventors appropriately depending on the amount of sales.

      How is a fair mathematical formula determined?  Who decides what is appropiate?  Are sales the only metric for the formula?

      Also, for comparison how does our current patent system ensure that inventors recoup costs on valuable patents?

      The inventor licenses the patent for for an agreed upon value.  Value is determined by the market.

      How does our current patent system reward downstream inventions and ideas?

      See above.

      You seem to have lofty goals for a new system that our current system doesn’t address.

      How are those not addressed?

      What patent fees? We’re talking about taxing products / services / corporate profits and then using that money to reward inventors.

      Money that goes to patent holders is a patent fee no matter how the money is collected.  If a company uses a patented invention but doesn’t list it how is that infringement enforced?  More lawyers and lawsuits?

      Again, implementation detail, but if multiple ideas contribute to the same product then the inventors of both would get rewarded.

      Details are the important part, how is the value of one patent determined over another, ie how do they split the revenue.