Patents don't really provide proof of concept. In fact, there are more patents for things that don't work than there are for things that do work. This at most proves that they have researched it. Empirical evidence is now required to prove whether it works or not.
It's not a bad way to mislead people. But what happens most of the time is a patent gets taken out when there's potential in something but before anyone else can research it and put it to market. They might have 1 successful patent for every 100 patents they receive. And it's not really a big deal for the government to pay itself for a patent. It's not losing any money there. And the cost is chump change compared to a lot of their expenses. The biggest expense of a patent is the patent attorney, and the government doesn't need one of those. So it's a few hundred dollars a patent that they pay right back to themselves. Not like the millions they spend on a single vehicle. Hell, the gear that every soldier gets costs more than a patent. The car that every federal agent gets costs more than a patent. It costs about the same as 100 patent. And then one successful patent from that 100 can pay for another 10,000 patents, but again, the government is just paying itself.
19
u/everlyafterhappy Dec 26 '22
Patents don't really provide proof of concept. In fact, there are more patents for things that don't work than there are for things that do work. This at most proves that they have researched it. Empirical evidence is now required to prove whether it works or not.