For example, if someone could replicate the effect with lead + gold, would that be considered a novel material which would not be subject to licensing? Is it the material itself or the method of production?
If I recall correctly, their patent for method covered a wide range of constituent elements, but left off gold. I would feel pretty bad for them if they genuinely discovered an RTP superconductor but that omission prevents them from becoming billionaires.
But more likely the issue is that their current method has lots of room for improvement and someone else finds one that is substantially better.
ETA: apparently wrong, can patent composition of very novel materials.
Is it possible that the inventors do not receive a dime of royalties?
However, they have told me what I interpreted to mean that if someone improves it but uses it then they need to license the underlying patent. That just makes sense, it's required in order to implement their concept.
And in reverse the original company can keep doing whatever they want as long as it isn't covered by the referencing patent. Makes sense to me there too, if they come up with some other clever way to make it good enough more power to them. There's no reason for them to pay some other people who patented something they don't use.
You can write stuff down generally enough that it's hard to make small changes and get around it. I did a lot of "1-10%" stuff in the claims.
The patent is here for reference: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2023027536A1/en
And yeah, they left off Au.
The only thing I can think of is that they did it and know that those noble metals don't work very well, and so they're getting everyone else to follow a wild goose chase down a very expensive rabbit hole while they already have a better approach.
... but the tech doesn't look that developed. Very strange.
It could be that they found something incredible by chance and they’re at the limits of their personal capability to further understand and refine. The fact that they’ve known about this for over 20 years suggests maybe. It’s not a bad thing if they are, they’ve already taken one of the biggest leaps. New teams with fresh eyes and varied backgrounds will look at the problem space and undoubtedly see room for refinement.
Is that clearer what I mean? I think the only reason to exclude those things is if they were super confident they weren't a good idea for some reason we don't know. Or they just... forgot? That would just be very surprising.
I'm no patent lawyer, but there is literally a US patent-office category covering "material" for exactly this kind of invention. Section 505 - "Superconductor Technology: Apparatus, Material, Process".
> This is the generic class for subject matter involving (a) superconductor technology above 30 K and (b) Art collections involving superconductor technology. Apparatus, devices, materials, and processes involving such technology are included herein.
https://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc505/def...
Better yet would be to offer partial payouts for failed efforts if research is made public.
This is probably more relevant for pharmaceuticals though.
Even so - if this works out, their prizes and paid speaking gigs will cover a very comfortable life if that's what they want. I'm not sure why they should be entitled to more than that.
They'll make a ton of money either ways. Maybe not billionaire level, but they'll be venerated wherever they go, will be granted countless prizes, will sit on the boards of important companies, and have their pick of academic jobs - all of it entirely deserved, of course.
If it's literally a room-temperature superconductor, the present state of the law is irrelevant. China won't play by the rules. If Korea tries to corner it in the West, the rules will be replaced. (This would have been true had the inventor been French or American, too.)
As long as there's profit to be made that exceeds the cost of delaying legal action and any eventual fines levied against what may turn out to be near bankrupt shell companies.
I'd rest my hopes on them not being dicks about it, not on them not getting benefit from it.
Why do people ask for raises though? It is somewhat rewarded, but some people don't work long and hard and still have more money. Those working long and hard, having a big useable result want to be rewarded a little more.
At the same time, other researchers around the world weren't so lucky.
But because we don't know what's going to pan out without trying it out, the other researchers are just as integral to the process of discovery.
Is it fair to reward Lee and Kim for their luck, and let everyone else get screwed? Wouldn't it be more fair to make sure everyone is appropriately compensated to begin with?
Yeah, it would be the perfect solution. Problem is how to agree on that, currently we have a market telling everyone what their "appropriate" compensation is.
now, if it were to death + 75 years, or whatever inane number is copyright today, you'd hear a different story from me. but it is not.
for compelling emergencies states can already waive patents, so the relevant mechanisms are already in place if anything momentous happens.
Companies price their offerings so that the global north will buy it, and the global south will have to pay proportionately extortionate amounts, with no relation whatsoever to the cost of production or research.
It seems so incredibly reductive to attribute global South issues to patents.
Not to mention the fact that the vaccines were developed with public money.
And you're wrong about the vaccines too. They were mostly developed with public money, private companies just profited off them.
I yearn for a Star Trek utopia as the next, but we do live in a capitalistic world where I hope that someone can enjoy outsized rewards for upending some previously insurmountable physical barriers.
You don't know how it's gonna go. The scientists are going to be fine, they have their careers guaranteed and will receive many prizes for their work.
They don't need a monopoly on a world changing material too.
No MRI, No Fusion, ect.
It would just be a waste of time and money.
Imagine you spend two years and $100,000 to make a invent a clever handheld MRI for the super conductor just to have 100 companies Steal Your Design. You would have been better off watching Netflix
Reading comprehension mate, cmon, don't assume bad intent.
What about the scientist who spent 23 years to develop lk99? There's a lot of solutions within the existing patent system. If governments wanted, they could simply offer them a stupid amount of money for the patent and open source it.
And I don't disagree with you, I think the scientists should get rewarded too. I just don't want access to technology that could help people to get held back by money, as it does with pharmaceuticals.