I sometimes wonder what the consequences would be of stipulating that patents had to be uniformly licensed to all interested parties without exception. Also that you couldn't decline to offer a license - you had to set reasonable terms and then accept all takers unconditionally.

I realize that's never going to happen and would probably have lots of unintended consequences. It's just a thought experiment after all. I find it interesting to think about because R&D can still be recouped under such a model which ... is kind of the entire (supposed) point of the system. Allegedly.

If nothing else we would presumably have seen mass market epaper and 3D printers much sooner.

▲

jburgess777 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is commonly known as ‘Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND)’. Some standards organisations will only accept contributions where a patent owner agrees to license them under FRAND terms.

▲

verall 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I sometimes wonder what the consequences would be of stipulating that patents had to be uniformly licensed to all interested parties without exception.

Isn't this the definition of FRAND which nearly the entire interview with the lawyer from the article is about?

	▲	fc417fc802 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes but I wonder what the result of applying something substantially similar to that to the entire patent system without exception might be. Also I had in mind "uniform" in addition to "reasonable", ie holders would be permitted only a single set of license terms at a single rate with zero difference regardless of size, volume, etc. Maybe being permitted to change the terms on offer at the end of every 5 year period or so. Or something vaguely like that anyway. It's really just a thought experiment about how you might kill patent trolls as well as the asymmetric advantages that large corporations enjoy while still maintaining the spirit of funding the R&D done by participants of all sizes.