I came here to say this

Lol same.

@Gary Oak His videos are awesome and if wants to put an ad there I am with it. Of course I would prefer if there were no ads.

I think you can... I mean... Amazon patented the 1 click instant purchase method.

Yet to see a KZfaqr so smooth .

xd

I thought not. It's not a story the megacorps would tell you.

@@loganb2936 it's a K-pop group ;)

@@loganb2936 but searching the word literally does bring them up

A kpop group

@@user-ih4jn2lk4j knew it.

I like his research and scope and information. I often find his analysis and solutions to be off.

What's wrong with it?

@@MarshallTheArtist It is not a solution, to begin with. He basically gave an abstract and stupid (I'll explain why) solution just as a connection to his ad read. This is not a solution, because a "prize" would mean that the inventions should have a specific value BEFORE it is invented. Which is absolutely not the case with inventors. The incentive for inventions is to make something that will be profitable when and if it is broadly used. There are literally thousands of patents approved everyday and there is an endless patent cemetery filled with unused patents. The budget for going through all of these AND fairly evaluating them AND paying for them, simply cannot exist. It can be also easily abused by lobbyists by over-rewarding stupid inventions made by mega-corporations (they'll basically get free government funding) and under-rewarding good inventions by small inventors, scientists, competitors etc, so those big corporations would be able to use these useful inventions, basically for free. Criminal organizations would also benefit. Make something up --> threat/pay the committee that decides for its value --> get free $$$ . Patent trolls would be an insignificant issue next to the problems that would arise by this ad inspired "solution".

Here's my solution. Patents should only be effective when exporting the new product. Let the innovation company profit over the world while giving him competition in the home country. So your people can reach that new product without expensive prizes on it.

@@gorkemvids4839 wow thats dumb

ok Tommorow

I will come back in 18 years and edit this comment exactly like yours, Proactive Thinker.

This comment is patented!

Your mom is also patented... By me!!

Per cent of what, though. Per cent of profit? Then companies can easily use your invention and claim there's no profit, because they are reinvesting everything (into beating you). Per cent of sale price? But how exactly when you patented one screw on brakes of an airplane?

@@miroslavhoudek7085 percentage of cost put into the production possibly? Eg. If I will spend 10 million dollars producing IPhones I must pay you 1 million dollars in patent rights.

@@leonaboson3070 Possibly. But then you would still be in need of deciding how much patent holder gets. Let's say that someone claims mp3 copyright. So how much much of the value of the iPhone the capability to play mp3 is. They say half, Apple thinks a hundredth... someone will need to decide it.

this already happens but at the sole discretion of the company. unless you arent a no name company in china you will pay a certain fee to make accessories for apple products like cases and chargers. this is one of the big reasons why apple doesnt want to make C type phones available it will stop a lot of recurring money from coming in. Its based on number of units produced, not even sold iirc dont quote me on that tho.

I completely agree with this solution. I honestly thought that's where he was going with this. Or even better, I think there should be patents with different lengths of protection and lower lengths would take less time to get examined. That way companies that knew they wouldn't need 20 yrs for a particular invention could apply for an expedited examination for 5 or 10 yr patents.

I disagree with the 'amount of money invested' because startups don't have much resources and are just starting out. This would favor the companies with much more resources.

@@JBravoEcho09 I actually think I disagree, because if I recall correctly, that has happened before. The Monopoly period used to be considerably shorter, but because it /still/ grants a Monopoly, people with said Monopoly still end up benefiting a lot, eliminating competition and innovation for years, and thus often end up with enough money and influence to lobby in favor of extending their monopoly period, and the power of said monopolies is more than enough reason to do so and insist on it. I think he addressed that in the video, saying it's more of a patch than a complete solution.

I think that only really works in theory. In practice, I can see it turning into a “well my patent fits into X, Y or Z, so it should last much longer” situation, and it will come down to bureaucratic decision-making, which will only serve the bigger corporations that can make bigger claims, and we are back to where we started, maybe worse off. In practice, patents do not serve the inventor. First, most inventions are automatically owned by companies, because they were invented by a research team who is contractually obliged to give all creations to the company. You might say “Oh, well that company is the ‘inventor’, so it did benefit,” but companies aren’t, and should never be seen as people. Second, those who do freelance and invent on their own time have to pay exorbitant fees with patent attorneys and other bureaucratic costs, because one must sift through the 3.1 million patents that exist and ensure that your patent doesn’t infringe upon another patent. Unless the patent is a one in a million innovation that will make huge changes, selling the patent will rarely if ever give you a return on your investment. And if it is a huge innovation, the best way to capitalize on it will be to start your own company based on that innovation.

A better solution would be to have royalties paid to the original inventor for a period of years, but with no need for permission to be granted before using the patent. You simply say that you're utilising a particular patent, and some receipts go to the patent holder.

I kept scrolling just to look for this comment !

@@aastikdubey6422 lol...me too!

What's that?

@@IndellableHatesHandles kpop group

5:06

You forgot to patent it!

patents are unenforceable between USA and overseas countries who detest them while building their own economy with USA sales.

Step 1: invest hundrets of millions of dollars into building a maschine capable of processing, storing and filtering this information, hire hundrets of people that act as quality controll

Google was *just* able to build a semi-good voice model (Google Assistant), a cheap neural network browsing on wikipedia wouldn't be able to analyze and understand text with any degree of accuracy.

@Bumblesnuff buffallobath yes it's ridiculous to think that it would solve all problems of humanity but atleast it would be better than humans with their supreme intellect and higher accuracy. But it also ridiculous to compare AI with god, one is a physical and real entity while the other is just a imagination. Praying to AI is not same as praying to god, AI will surely do something while the god would not.

I'm going to patent the concept of a comment about patenting the idea of a youtube video about patents on a youtube video about patents.

Not if I patent the patenting process in general. @@TheEclecticDyslexic

Yes, but when you file a takedown claim against Google and they say "oh yeah well, how bout make me" do you have the resources to go toe to toe with a massive corporation? At the end of the day that counts for more.

@@SacredDaturana It wouldn't matter because I've already patented patents.

@@TheEclecticDyslexic Damn, I guess so... Unless, of course, I patented enforcement of patents....

Lower taxes for the initial inventor? What if its just some dude in his basement, hardly a reward. Why dont you sell your idea who ever wants to buy it and gets rights to it for a year? after that, the idea is free to all.

Just use a system where people have to pay royalties to the original creator for using the patented idea, and allow anyone to use any patent so long as they have paid the fee/percentage of profits.

Did you not watch the video?

Rewatch the video particularly up until the 1:30 mark

You can have royalties if people use your patent, but you can't stop other people from improving or using your invention, also developing nations shouldn't be held to the same patent standards as rich people as they don't have the capital to defend their patents or to research since they spend more time/money surviving.

​@@aoeu256 Oftentimes, at least when it comes to organisms and drugs, patents are easy to sidestep without compensation. For example, every time that a drug patent expires the chemical formula is slightly adjusted with a change that is enough for a new patent, but not enough to change the function. Generics are oftentimes just the old version. Note that this is not the same thing as an improvement. It's just an inert change. The same trick can be used on a new drug. Make an inert change to a life saving drug and you can undercut the company that developed the drug to begin with and you'd get a new patent. With organisms there are two main methods of development: Breeding and Genetic Modifications. Either way the patent holder gets to choose who can grow it. My strain of Spirulina is the result of breeding. If another company wanted to breed an improved strain they'd need my permission to grow it in which case I'd be due royalties, but if another company wanted to make a genetic modification to it that in no way improves it, but makes it different enough, they could reap the benefits of my development. Since I lack the resources to take my product to market I have decided not to patent it yet. I can do so at any time. If I did patent it I'd only have 20 years of protections and it would then be possible for another company to try and replicate it without compensation. On the other hand if someone inadvertently creates something similar and files for a patent I could challenge that patent under "prior work" rules. So the current rules give me every incentive to keep an invention off the market until I am ready to fully comercialize it. A Prize system would incentivize me to go to market sooner which would benefit the economy. Regarding your comment about other countries: U.S. patents only apply to US territories and have no effect in foreign countries developing or otherwise. There is no universal patent system so if I patented my product in the United States there would be nothing I could legally do about someone in a third world country from getting a sample of it and producing it without paying me royalties. Oftentimes a company concerned about this will pay to patent in every country they can or will exclude from the patent documents key information needed to make it work. The habit of excluding important details from a patent application can create problems though. For example, the patent on the water powered car described a process of vibrational resonance to decrease the electrical energy required to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, but didn't go further. He demonstrated that his invention works, but we don't know enough to recreate it. In all probability it didn't produce more energy than went in, but it might have worked by being far more efficient than a modern electrical car. In any case, since the inventor died without disclosing his secrets his invention died with him. A more well known example would be how the US government had to spend billions of dollars re-discovering it's own inventions because it refused to disclose to the patent office enough information to create it and lost the original documents with all copies being redacted. That happened several times. Having an incentive towards secrecy with regards to inventions is a big problem that I think a prize system could solve in some cases at least since you'd have to disclose all the details in that case, not just the details you want to protect. And while I agree with your sentiments about international circumstances a universal patent could be a good idea if done right.

Dan Z that’s a brilliant solution, it’s a grant to make a return on investment. Only problem is the game of lying about how much your investment was

is there a way to audit investments?

but what is appropriate compensation?

@@thomhughes4617 It's still way better than the broken system we have now. At least this simplifies things.

@@theajayyy Have a real business person like Mark Cuban, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and myself on an advisory board to determine the market value. We surely would know market value.

This is a problem that's already possible with the current system.

Lol. They already do that. What are you talking about?

@jellyfish, no, that's the point, they wouldn't. It's the patent system that gives them legal basis to sue each other over who had the idea first now. Without patents, companies would still sue each other, but the question over who had an idea first would be off the table.

I didn't get it but I learned something today!

Hahahaha. Im just here cause I had hope for humanity. Luckily some of the comments have restored it. Thank you

just do it like linustechtips

up HAHAH. PolyMatter who's ur bias?

yes, awesome! you cant easily find that logo by just googling twice, he had to do this on purpose!

I saw it too and I find it genius!

YES I DID

What is twice

Hiii may I ask what did you go into eventually?

@@adamkox18 I'm... still unemployed. I only just started seriously looking for things I could do, then the pandemic hit, and since I'm already living with my parents for free in my hometown, it didn't make sense to blindly move to the city, probably become injured (maybe permanently) by the pandemic, and go into ever-increasing amounts of debt a month for the 'privilege' of working a job that didn't cover rent and food. My current strategy, if you can call it that, is to look for a clerical job with the local public library or government. If I can continue living at home, it doesn't have to pay well or have many hours, because the value of remaining at home (even just monetarily, taking advantage of the amazing logistics and economies of scale my family is known for, buying everything on sale and in bulk and cooking/repairing/building as much as possible ourselves) is more than any amount of money I could reasonably make in a so-called 'entry-level' job.

If there's a will, someone will find a way.

They make enough money already

The solution involves being anti-corporate. Minimise copyright so that violation doesn't have to be a norm for legitmate customers. And more importantly, that those companies aren't forced to prosecute for the sake of thier IP rights as is required of them. They could be ok with allowing fan projects because the law didn't force them to protect themselves. All DRM and anti-tamper software has been cracked before and continues to do so. Denuvo might have set them back for a couple of years, but it has fallen too. That "solution" is just an arms race that's bever ending. A true solution would involve actual trust between consumers and companies again. Unfortunately however, many companies have demonstrated time and time again that they do not care for being fair to consumers, and they don't care about laws either, only how they can abuse them to serve themselves and hinder everyone else. Either corporate leaderships have to change thier behaviours drastically, or they have to be thrown out of thier offices from within, or they have to be forced out in some other way. Failing that (and since I suspect corporate culture is as much to be concerned about as certain individuals.), those companies that will not stop abusing the people within them and without (thus are nearly guiltly of crimes against humanity.), have to be dismantled in thier entirely in the most literal sense, thier infrastructure destroyed utterly. Even though it will mean the unemployement of millions. For it is that bad. Even moderate me agrees. But whatever the action taken, it must be against corporate culture. If that can be done non-violently, great, but I'm unsure that's possible in light of those too corrupt to ever change back into decent human beings.

Please don't, i use 123movies and putlockers daily for my home theater

1. Pirate to try something out! 2. Like the product and have nothing against the company's practices? Buy the product so they can keep producing products like that which you bought! 3. Repeat!

just gonna sit here and wait for someone to say "NOT YOU AGAIN"

Commented before 100 likes noice

Justin Y needs a patent cus they're so many fakes out there

Justin Y. Patent Number 1038483394354 Any Fakes will be sued to the full extent of the law.

Paid for your bots this month, I see.

exactly. "IP" is the idea that you can tell other people what to do with their body and property.

Agreed

Not so sure for patents in general, but there's more than enough evidence that all the lawsuits and such associated with software patents vastly exceed the financial benefit anyone holding such patents will ever get out of it...

no

The main problem of everyone sueing everyone else in bad faith still remains. The court costs are the main problem. This would only mitigate the problem so people couldn't sue for all the "offender's" money and instead only get some of it. Still better than what we have now though.

Another problem about this is that you have to litigate over what percentage and percentage of what should be paid. A flat fee per unit sold/used would be better

royalty fees

Google Lens told me it's Instapaper. Blows my mind how insane Google's AI is.

@@pana_d thx dude!

A non-profit perhaps or something thru the United Nations? Whatever they come up with surely it will be better than what we currently have.

@@TheMillionairesMentalist No it won't. There is no way multiple governments would pay for this, and surely none would let a non profit organisation or the UN decice what its taxpayers should pay money for. Not to mention the fact that the benefits from each idea or patent vary for each country and it's hard to even assume it's benefit before the company has even done anything. There is a problem, yes, but this "solution" would be thousand times worse

Just let the Americans pay for it as usual. They already pay for most of the drug r&d.

INatalkaI then stop. If you want. It's not like the little america is having its little head pointed at with a gun and forced. xd

Governments pay for nothing. They rob money from workers and use the loot to pay for stuff that will get them re-elected. (Mr. Trump's government is not included in this criminal action.)

Yeah it does sound off I watched at 1.25x speed

but it is suitable for us English learners😃

I thought the same! I assumed it was my brain.

Yeah. His former video presentation speed was just patented by his competition

Video felt normal until I saw your comment

Andrew Bachman this video is extremely biased and antilibertarian in nature

So you're saying patent trolls, ridiculously broad patents, and monopolies are just fine because it protects startups?

@Andrew I see copyright and patents allowing big companies to strangle startups far more often. I see them abuse the system to make the problems they were meant to solve even worse then they were without. If your not being targeted in some fashion. Your either lucky, or they just haven't come to you, just wait. Your the one who is naive. We might need solutions to the problems that patents aim to solve. But the patent system fails to do so. It either has to be majorly overhauled, or scraped and started anew.

@@komutsky1879 libertarians don't necessarily believe in intellectual property.

@@komutsky1879 The most hardcore capitalists you can find (anarcho-capitalists), argue intellectual property is an illegitimate concept that always stagnates innovation. Take that for what you will. You can see an IP lawyer & Ancap (Austrian school) economist talk about why that is here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Zq-WhdCcqN7dm2w.html

Lol hypocrite

same except china is growing and making bank while overseas corporations are triggered

One small issue here, patents are issued by country. Thus there is no way to infringe a patent except if you do so in a country that HAS a patent on such things. And patents have to be applied for individually by country, so just because you have a patent on something in the US, someone that operates entirely within say, the UK doesn't have to give the slightest shit about your patent. So a country which doesn't issue patents at all can let people do anything, as long as they don't then try and sell their stuff in a country in which something they've done is patented...

Dont leave make another one

Hmm... You misheard the sentence. Hes saying we should look at it differently: as a trade. Not suggesting they are not a right. As for how hard it is, this is a common issue that is wide spread. Countless stories about small business getting brought to court over, IE: Code in a game that links a game with it's servers is somehow a trolls IP, can't get more abstract... The existence of this issue in any capacity disproves the idea you can't patent an "abstract idea". Lastly, these issues are not being fixed, they are being amplified. Getting rid of patents would not be my solution but something needs to be done. If you only see a flawed system getting worse and not being fixed, don't be shocked when people start wanting to remove it entirely. China, imho, does not have the best system, but at some point our system will get so defiled that it will look like the best course of action... So ignoring issues or minimizing them is not a viable option, just look at the issues and think about how to fix them...

@@jsveterans6949 First, I did not mishear him. The reason why I stress the fact that they are rights and not "trades" is because giving up this right is such a radical idea that should ultimately be abandoned. Is the current system flawed? Sure, but the reason why patents date back to the 1800s is because society at large recognizes their value. They serve a purpose in protecting the intellectual property of a creator. Before statute protected this right, the stealing of work was so widespread that creators were afraid of publication for fear of intellectual theft. Second, I did not make up my point about abstract ideas. That comes straight from the US Supreme Court if you do not believe me. As I mentioned the United States Patent and Trademark Office often grant patents that they shouldn't but there is already a quick and easy process in place for invalidating those patents. It is a somewhat expensive process, but it beats having to litigate it in court at the risk of millions of dollars on the line. Finally, I think you are somewhat misinformed. China also has a patent system as they are members of the World Trade Organization which states that each member must conform to a treaty regarding intellectual property (i.e. their laws must conform to the treaty). While in practice, intellectual property infringement is widespread in China, at least on the books they adhere to the principles of patents, copyrights, and trademarks. If you do not agree with the current system, then look at the argument laid forth by Uniquenameosaurus on his second video regarding and advocating Copyright Piracy. I know it's an hour long video, but it's definitely worth the watch if you are interested in this sort of thing. I don't even fully agree with everything he says either, but at the very least he acknowledges the value of the current system and that abandoning it is foolish.

There should be a forum and each major company should appoint a representative headed by someone who no longer has a vested interest. An industry leader. Perhaps someone already in philanthropy. I nominate Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They have proven themselves worthy with their commitment to the giving pledge. I would also nominate Marc Cuban if he was willing to step down from all his other interest. He's a well-spoken thought leader with the visibility, transparency and practical insights to make this a reality.

Ad hominem eh. That does not help your credibility.

Yes, thank you! I work in IP too and was looking for a comment like yours. This video was either very simplified or just plain not well researched. As if statutory requirements for patent eligibility don't exist and anything can be patented.

My question is what's the complete cost of filing for a patent. Is it really in 4 figures, if so that's screwed up. Even amongst startups only the well funded ones can afford it then.

God, I really, REALLY hate the term IP. It's a toxic distortion of what these laws were originally created for, and has some seriously strong negative effects on people's perceptions of such laws. Conflating abstract concepts and patents with physical property is perhaps one of the most insidious forms of propaganda of the 20th century. Truly, truly awful.

Go back to the gutter.

Kento Nishi I thought Microsoft was dying

@@mistakenmeme They aren't. In fact, they passed Apple on Friday with 851B, and Apple with 848B. Microsoft is now on top, because of their cloud, AI, and service advancements. They are no longer a Windows company, but a cloud service company.

Kento Nishi I mean that makes sense. I’ve seen tons of stuff about Microsoft’s AI.

Yeah, that won't work.

Easy. Stop accepting new patent applications let currently held patents go to expiration.

And that's the heart if the issue isn't it? Can you consider intellectual property as you would consider material or land property? it's not physical, you do not "have it", it's aslo not like money, where an international bank system guarantee you ownership of virtual value. An idea is created by the mind from thin air, and as such it is not linked to any form of capital, labor or prestige. Anyone has the capacity of producing the same idea, so why the fact that someone produced it first should give them any advantage over others that also have the same idea? Ideas are intangible, there is no value system of iedeas, so how can ideas be properties? That's why patents are void after some years.