Kaleb Beebout

<aside> <img src="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/fddf2a37-7eb3-4a44-9b09-07e1393fb420/vzlb.png" alt="https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/secure.notion-static.com/fddf2a37-7eb3-4a44-9b09-07e1393fb420/vzlb.png" width="40px" /> Feb. 1st, 2022 | 10 min read time | 2413 words

</aside>

Patents form the backbone of modern (intellectual) property rights. And are thus necessary.

Right?

Wrong-ish - and not for the reasons you might think. The problem is endemic beyond the rest of the popular ‘patent’ discourse.

The trickle down and trickle up effects are visible across industries. I will not focus on vertical-specific explanations. I will discuss a few concepts I have observed with examples tying the concepts together.

Network effects drive rewards to large, existing players.

Corporate entities have long dominated the global patent system. Every aspect of the patent process is difficult. And getting more difficult with every passing year. Moving the bar little by little until it is out of reach of the lay-person inventor. Lawyers, endless forms, limited power-of-attorney, snail-mail letters, fees, et cetera.

The global patent system has morphed away from an egalitarian system. Inasmuch as anything was egalitarian in 15th century Venice where the patent system arose. Or in 18th century America where George Washington signed the first patent after the passage of the Patent Act of 1790. The patent system has shifted to one dominated by corporations with massive capital. These wealthy corporations are the only players in the global patent system able to extract value.

Patent =/= Protection.

A single patent is not a solution for a company to protect its intellectual property assets. Nor does it offer the lone inventor protection over their invention. This is the case for a litany of reasons that I do not feel like covering in depth here. You’ll have to take my word for it or verify this is the case on your own.

Picture left (un)related.

• Search terms to get you started if you want to know more.

Effective monetization of patents accumulates towards large corporate entities.

Entities that have large patent portfolios monetize them in ways not possible for solo inventors. Revenue accumulates towards the upper end of the chart. The incidence rate of ideas is more distributed as seen below. All charts are rendered using only the most cutting edge technology.

Charts showing monetization vs organization size and distribution of ideas vs organization size

There is some valid criticism for these charts. Straight off the bat the distribution for ideas is incorrect. It would be disingenuous to suggest that employees at large companies do not have unique insights from their positions. The double negative is confusing, let me be clearer. Opportunity begets more opportunity.

Lack of experience or opportunity disadvantages individual inventors. Not that individual inventors are less likely to conceive of valuable inventions. Or are less capable of doing so.

Good idea =/= valuable idea =/= good team.

Veering away from patents for a moment, consider the difference between a good idea and a valuable idea. Pause for a moment and reflect on what immediately jumps to your mind - it will make the next sections land better.