5 ms·

The question should not be whether you believe that it is possible for patents to promote innovation. Rather can you prove based on evidence that they clearly a

The question should not be whether you believe that it is possible for patents to promote innovation. Rather can you prove based on evidence that they clearly and irrefutably, in fact, do so? Do patents ever harm or retard innovation? Is it economically worth the burden of the patent system for the benefit achieved, or are there better alternatives? Moreover, how much theoretical economic payoff justifies surrendering a basic right? Should government be given sweeping power to dictate how we use our minds?

mirimir 11y ago
Those are excellent points. There's no doubt that multinationals have gamed the global patent, copyright and trademark systems. On the other hand, it is plausible that the possibility of limited monopoly would promote innovation. But how would one measure costs vs benefits?
- JulianMorrison 11y ago
  It's arguable that limited monopoly promotes the first innovation. But it should be obvious, it prevents all the possible third party innovations that riff off the first. It's easy to miss the dog that didn't bark, or the improvement that couldn't be sold.
  - dougabug 11y ago
    There's also the question of inequality. Granting monopolies exacerbates inequality, so a hypothetical short term boost to productivity growth might not translate into meaningfully better quality of life for most people. Government engineered barriers to competitive use of specific ideas could undermine the bargaining power of workers, and artificially inflate or support prices of key goods. It seems like an innovation supporting tax would be less restrictive, while still rewarding useful innovations that the market somehow fails to reward.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Indeed. What comes to mind are farmers who depend on highly tweaked crops to survive, but who are forbidden (or prevented by design) from even saving seeds. Let alone trying to improve the strain.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    That is an excellent point. The key, then, would be to distinguish and reward such primary innovation. Maybe it's obvious when you see it. Or maybe do some Bates thing with panels of experts.
- mirimir 11y ago
  Such as TPP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363500

mirimir 11y ago

Those are excellent points. There's no doubt that multinationals have gamed the global patent, copyright and trademark systems. On the other hand, it is plausible that the possibility of limited monopoly would promote innovation. But how would one measure costs vs benefits?

JulianMorrison 11y ago
It's arguable that limited monopoly promotes the first innovation. But it should be obvious, it prevents all the possible third party innovations that riff off the first. It's easy to miss the dog that didn't bark, or the improvement that couldn't be sold.
- dougabug 11y ago
  There's also the question of inequality. Granting monopolies exacerbates inequality, so a hypothetical short term boost to productivity growth might not translate into meaningfully better quality of life for most people. Government engineered barriers to competitive use of specific ideas could undermine the bargaining power of workers, and artificially inflate or support prices of key goods. It seems like an innovation supporting tax would be less restrictive, while still rewarding useful innovations that the market somehow fails to reward.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    Indeed. What comes to mind are farmers who depend on highly tweaked crops to survive, but who are forbidden (or prevented by design) from even saving seeds. Let alone trying to improve the strain.
- mirimir 11y ago
  That is an excellent point. The key, then, would be to distinguish and reward such primary innovation. Maybe it's obvious when you see it. Or maybe do some Bates thing with panels of experts.
mirimir 11y ago
Such as TPP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10363500