Ask HN: Why are patents transferable? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why are patents transferable?

4 pointsDysiode5 comments

Why are patents transferable beyond the original creator? Shouldn't they only benefit the person who created it? What claim does some arbitrary company dozens of sales down the line have to that patent other than that they have a large amount of money/clout?

I can understand someone has an idea but lacks the resources to substantiate their vision and therefore sells it to someone who can, but even then, why can't they just license it?

And, in a similar vein, why wouldn't a patent become public domain once the creator dies as there's no way for them to benefit from it after that (metaphysics aside). Pharmaceutical patents have an end point so I don't see why this isn't plausible.

View on HN

    Why are patents transferable beyond the original creator?

This allows the creator to benefit in the case they can't personally exploit their work. If I invent some CPU fabrication process, I won't have the capital to invest to realize it and benefit - but maybe I can sell it to someone who can, which means the invention is actually used, and also I get some benefit.

    why wouldn't a patent become public domain once the creator dies

What if the patent is a joint creation, or created while working for a company, i.e. the company owns it?

> This allows the creator to benefit in the case they can't personally exploit their work.

I wanted to be succinct for the title, but I'm more getting at why people other than the creator can sell a patent. Selling is still beneficial to the owner, however, if the company sells it after that then how's the benefiting the owner?

> What if the patent is a joint creation, or created while working for a company, i.e. the company owns it?

This is more of a side note to me, although, it looks like patents expire after 20 years. At least that's a number I've seen cited a couple places since posting the question.

With that said, maybe the pharmaceutical process is something worth looking into? I know the timer starts on their patents as soon as they submit it which long before they can ever produce it, but the point is that they're able to pay for all the research and trials involved in making the drug. Maybe there's some analogy for other applications (e.g. software patents)?

> why wouldn't a patent become public domain once the creator dies

Because there'd be a financial incentive to kill patent holders?

If you think that's far-fetched, consider that some organisations are quite happy to torture their employees with silicosis if it means they can make faded jeans cheaply (Google it).

(On a related note, abolish patents!)

> Because there'd be a financial incentive to kill patent holders?

To be fair, a) people don't kill copyright holders before Disney got a hold of the legislation (or did they?) and b) I imagine the legal ramifications would outweigh, at least largely in part, the benefits of assassination.

There are tax, liability, and business issues. Trust me it's a mess especially when you try to minimize the tax liability, you can do all sorts of crazy crap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com