Nationalize all patents owned but not being used that are inhibiting technological or health progress

Economy
1

The government should consider nationalizing patents that companies acquire but choose not to use, particularly when these patents involve innovations that could benefit public health, environmental sustainability, or other critical areas. Often, large corporations buy patents to limit competition or maintain control over certain technologies, which stifles innovation and restricts access to potentially life-saving or world-improving advancements. By nationalizing unused patents, the government could ensure that these innovations are available for further research, development, and public use, promoting progress rather than allowing these ideas to be “shelved” indefinitely for profit motives. This policy could help prioritize societal needs, especially in areas like pharmaceuticals, clean energy, and medical devices, where patent monopolies can inhibit access to affordable solutions.

Nationalizing dormant patents could also foster a more competitive market by encouraging smaller companies and startups to bring new products and services to market. This policy would help level the playing field and stimulate economic growth by giving more companies a chance to innovate without being blocked by patents held by large corporations with no intent to use them. For example, patents on green technologies, such as renewable energy sources or waste-reduction methods, are critical in addressing climate change, and it is counterproductive to let these patents remain idle. With government intervention, unused patents could be licensed to organizations with the capacity to develop them, fostering innovation and improving society’s overall well-being while ensuring that private interests do not override public good.

3 Likes
2

Good idea, but patents are already subject to maintenance fees three times during their lifetime. So, a lot of patents expire by themselves.

Having a patent, not exploiting it commercially, but paying maintenance fees is clearly obstructive behavior, in my opinion. To counteract that, I would say we should require a showing of ‘substantial’ use by the 7 1/2 year maintenance fee in order to keep the patent alive. We already require use to renew trademarks, so this is not a completely new concept.

In exchange for getting a use showing passed into law, we should incentivize patent holders by providing 5 more years to the patent term.

3

We had a patent, that we licensed to a company. They shelved the product, even with performance requirements. It took us 4-7 years to get it back from them.
There should be a mandatory royalty so we can afford the maintenance fees.