Hacker News Reader

Comment by bbor | Hacker News Reader

Cmon be nice to the car seat people :). Let’s say it cost $10 to develop this groundbreaking car seat technology, and $1 to make a car seat, so the company charges $1.50 to make up their investment in 20 sales. If they gave away their patent, then another company (who didn’t have to pay that initial cost) could sell the same seats for $1.

This is episode 1000 in our favorite series: why and how capitalism strangles innovation

View on HN

The flip side is that R&D is a lot easier and cheaper when you don’t have to worry about accidental infringement. But your last paragraph suggests we’re already in agreement.

In any case, I’m fine with companies making the pragmatic choice to pursue patent protection. But being defensive and flippant about it isn’t a good look. It’s much better to argue for instance that you put yourself at a disadvantage if you’re the only business that doesn’t patent their innovations, and that a patent portfolio also has a defensive function.

I mean, you could just be more flippant in response and suggest that the best car seat is the one without a car in the first place

> The flip side is that R&D is a lot easier and cheaper when you don’t have to worry about accidental infringement.

Not when you're a hardware company. You typically rely on external vendors and long feedback loops between iterations for development and have to pay people along the way and in-between. Your remark that someones is morally obligated to give their innovation away before R&D costs are paid for, or really at all outside of a licensing model, is so far left field it might have a seat with the cars.

Thank you for the support. You have eloquently explained the innovation conundrum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com