🚀 go-pugleaf

On 19 Aug 91 14:49:27 GMT, nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) said:

nazgul> In article <PCG.91Aug18210217@aberda.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk
nazgul> (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

pcg> My favourite solution would be, instead of granting the inventor

pcg> esclusive *manufacturing* rights, granting him exclusive *royalty*
pcg> [ ... ]  The royalty would be by default something like 3-5% (which
pcg> is little for a new product, where profit margins can be supposed
pcg> to be something like

nazgul> 3 to 5% of what?  If I'm selling a workstation, what's the
nazgul> royalty I pay for the xor cursor?

nazgul> Of course currently people can and do do this with patents.  But
nazgul> I can't imagine a fair way of legislating that they must, since
nazgul> any such legislation would have to include an amount, and
nazgul> there's no fair way of determining that other than a case by
nazgul> case evaulation.  If that weren't the case, I agree, it's a
nazgul> tempting thing to do.

Well, I am not advocating a "fair" royalty. I am advocating a default
(and maximum) royalty that is generous, but not forbidding. Then if the
market for the invention at that default (and maximum) royalty i not as
large as the inventor hoped, he can always settle for a lower royalty.

The problem is that if one sets a default (and maximum) royalty that is
too "low" for most inventions, a lot of people will scream
"expropriation". If the inventor is allowed to set any default (without
maximum) royalty fee he can set it so high to effectively forbid
adoption of his patent except in the case where he grants a non default
fee.
--
Piercarlo Grandi                   | ARPA: pcg%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth        | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk