5 Killer Quora Answers on marketing patents
This question probably deserves its own post, but I think it is worth mentioning. Is marketing a legitimate form of patenting? Because it is.
The idea that marketing can be thought of as patenting is not exactly a new one. In fact, as far back as 1868, patenting was one of the first things that newspapers would do for the public. To this day, it’s not unusual for them to publish articles that discuss patentability of new inventions, as well as the validity of certain trademarks.
Trademark law is one of the oldest forms of patent law that exists on earth. Trademark law is about protecting your name from being used by anyone else in another country. The first trademark was the “Penguin Poodle” which was trademarked in the late 1800s.
The trademark law that exists today is the result of the 20th century’s industrial revolution. If you go back a few centuries, people would have been doing almost anything they could to protect their names. We’re still working on this issue today, so stay tuned. The next major change is likely to be the end of patents being granted for anything but the most basic inventions.
In many ways, the current patent system is a form of socialism. With patents, the inventor is compensated for the very little work that they did. But you can’t really patent a “factory tool.” This is why it’s important to remember that there’s only so much you can patent. In the future, we may see a future of corporations trying to patent everything. I have no doubt that it has already happened on a large scale.
Like most companies, the patent system is a bit too good at making money for it to fail. However, it really has failed at providing value. In the future, if you don’t patent something, you cannot sell it. In reality, you can sell it, but you cannot sell the whole thing. The patent system is good at making money for companies. It is really good at making money for the inventors, but the inventors rarely have any idea of the value of their inventions.
The problem for companies is that they do not have a clear roadmap on what their inventions should be. They are basically trying to invent something that others are going to have to buy. So when they try to patent it, it is a complete gamble. They are hoping that some future patent holder will sue them because it will bring in more money for them. But if they lose, it will have no clear economic benefit to them.
The problem is that if inventors are not being paid, what is the incentive for anyone to invest in their inventions? Inventors are often the ones who go to work on projects that have no real profit potential or that are not even in the public domain. So what is the incentive to invest in a project that has no marketable value? A company’s only concern is that it does not have to pay the inventors any compensation.
So if they are paid a lot of money for an idea, but it doesn’t make them any money, then there is no incentive for them to spend the money to make a product that has no marketable value. That’s why the US Patent Office has the most restrictive patent system in the world, and why companies like Apple are only allowed to patent things they invented, and not ideas they had.
Patenting the ideas that you are not paid to create is like the most self-centered move you can make. This is because ideas that never get created are not as valuable as ideas that do get created.