The Japanese company should have recouped their additional costs between the product launch and the Chinese company's product launch. If that interval was too short for them to do so it means that, as I said before, their "costs to create the product in the first place" were too high to begin with. For society's greater good we should put no premium on "I was here first/I did it first!", but only on "I build this product using less resources, hence it has the lowest price!".
I disagree completely.
If we didn't care about being there first we wouldn't have patents, and without patents, why would companies bother spending any money on R&D?
If you spend money on R&D, you have to recuperate those costs. If a competitor could just make an exact copy, then even if they made it in the same exact way that you did, they'd be able to sell it at a lower cost because they spent nothing on R&D.
Patents aren't perfect, but they exist for a good reason: to promote innovation for "society's greater good"
Yeah, it does seem like we're on two different sides of the barricade. Patent-related discussions never seem to end once they get going (even more so on HN), but I just wanted to add that I was surprised to read recently that James Watt himself was being criticized during his lifetime for holding patents for too long and for too important an industry.
Can't find the exact quote right now (it doesn't help that the book I read it from was a 500+ page Italian translation of a history of the Industrial Revolution, originally written in French - https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_9CEeAAAAIAAJ), the closest that I could find was this, which is a contemporary view on it: https://fee.org/articles/do-patents-encourage-or-hinder-inno...
> By patenting the separate condenser Boulton and Watt, from 1769 to 1800, had almost absolute control on the development of the steam engine. They were able to use the power of their patent and the legal system to frustrate the efforts of engineers such as Jonathan Hornblower to further improve the fuel efficiency of the steam engine. By way of contrast, and fortunately, Trevithick did not patent his equally innovative high-pressure design.
> Ironically, not only did Watt use the patent system as a legal cudgel with which to smash competition, but his own efforts at developing a superior steam engine were hindered by the very same patent system he used to keep competitors at bay. An important limitation of the original Newcomen engine was its inability to deliver a steady rotary motion. The most convenient solution, involving the combined use of the crank and a flywheel, relied on a method patented by James Pickard, which prevented Watt from using it. Watt also made various attempts at efficiently transforming reciprocating into rotary motion, reaching, apparently, the same solution as Pickard. But the existence of a patent forced him to contrive an alternative less-efficient mechanical device, the sun and planet gear. It was only in 1794, after the expiration of Pickard’s patent, that Boulton and Watt adopted the economically and technically superior crank. The impact of the expiration of Watt’s patents on his empire may come as a surprise as well. Far from being driven out of business, Boulton and Watt for many years were able to charge a premium over the price of other steam engine manufacturers.
And I'm pretty sure that our industrial past includes many such cases in which the greater good was sacrificed for the interest of the few, like it happened even in Watt's case.
