4 ms·

You make some compelling points but I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. The strength of a company is often

You make some compelling points but I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. The strength of a company is often in its organization, processes, location, and systems which are difficult to copy in a cohesive way without being gifted with similar circumstances. Why can't a company's strength and success in the marketplace be defined by these characteristics as opposed to legislative shields? Winner-takes-all systems often shape organizational behavior to be more defensive than creative.

novaleaf 11y ago
> I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. Protections of inventions (as loose as the term "invention" might be) isn't the only avenue to innovation, but it is an avenue. There is always going to be a pull between free/open and paid/private. It's a good thing that multiple avenues exist, because some public-good innovations may happen under one regime but not the other. Also, I take issue with the terms of the "it should be free" conversation here. The patent isn't for the gene: the company does not hold the rights to your DNA. The patent is for the discovery of it's link to cancer. In this exact circumstance, I question how long it would take for this gene to be identified as a causal-link to breast cancer if there was not the bait of a financial windfall. Is there a smoking gun that shows this company beat out a public institution to this discovery?
kbenson 11y ago
Let's not reduce this argument to innovation for companies. Individuals innovate and patent as well. There is a tendency to focus purely on the negative effects of a system that seems to be failing it's purpose. It's important to understand the system as a whole, and it's history. Has the patent system ever functioned for the purpose it was designed for? If it isn't functioning correctly now, is that in part or in whole? Is it not functioning because it has been changed, because the world has changed, or both. Finally, is there a way to alter the system, whether that be to curtail it, expand it, or just change how it operates, that might yield a better functioning system? Personally, I'm not for abolishing patents. They had a very clearly defined purpose (innovation encouragement) when they were first created. I think they've been mostly perverted into another purpose (wealth protection), more-so in some industries than others. They've been expanded from court rulings to cover things which were not originally thought patentable. What we need here is a well reasoned legislative overhaul. What we'll get if we're extremely lucky is a hole-ridden clusterfuck of revisions, but if we're lucky, it will somewhat address the current problems. The new problems will be something we discover and address tomorrow.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  I don't think you can disentangle those two purposes. Innovation is encouraged precisely because you can profit from your invention. I believe the cost and delay of patent litigation is the real problem. It's important to identify the critical issue before effective change can happen.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    My point was when wealth protection is a tool to bolster innovation, then the incentives are aligned correctly. When people, or more importantly legislators, forget that and think the purpose of patents is to reward for innovation, we get some perverse incentives. In a perfect world, protection would be inversely proportional to the amount of innovation the sector is experiencing, and would also be scaled to the amount the innovation helps. But those are both hard to measure realistically.
- sdenton4 11y ago
  Individual patents are a corner case that's hardly worth sneezing about. They typically come up in these sorts of conversations in the same way that, say, Monsanto will cry about protecting small farmers while proposing rule changes that let it get away with whole new classes of abuse...

novaleaf 11y ago

> I'm still not convinced that this form of protectionism is the only avenue to innovation. Protections of inventions (as loose as the term "invention" might be) isn't the only avenue to innovation, but it is an avenue. There is always going to be a pull between free/open and paid/private. It's a good thing that multiple avenues exist, because some public-good innovations may happen under one regime but not the other. Also, I take issue with the terms of the "it should be free" conversation here. The patent isn't for the gene: the company does not hold the rights to your DNA. The patent is for the discovery of it's link to cancer. In this exact circumstance, I question how long it would take for this gene to be identified as a causal-link to breast cancer if there was not the bait of a financial windfall. Is there a smoking gun that shows this company beat out a public institution to this discovery?

kbenson 11y ago

Let's not reduce this argument to innovation for companies. Individuals innovate and patent as well. There is a tendency to focus purely on the negative effects of a system that seems to be failing it's purpose. It's important to understand the system as a whole, and it's history. Has the patent system ever functioned for the purpose it was designed for? If it isn't functioning correctly now, is that in part or in whole? Is it not functioning because it has been changed, because the world has changed, or both. Finally, is there a way to alter the system, whether that be to curtail it, expand it, or just change how it operates, that might yield a better functioning system? Personally, I'm not for abolishing patents. They had a very clearly defined purpose (innovation encouragement) when they were first created. I think they've been mostly perverted into another purpose (wealth protection), more-so in some industries than others. They've been expanded from court rulings to cover things which were not originally thought patentable. What we need here is a well reasoned legislative overhaul. What we'll get if we're extremely lucky is a hole-ridden clusterfuck of revisions, but if we're lucky, it will somewhat address the current problems. The new problems will be something we discover and address tomorrow.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
I don't think you can disentangle those two purposes. Innovation is encouraged precisely because you can profit from your invention. I believe the cost and delay of patent litigation is the real problem. It's important to identify the critical issue before effective change can happen.
- kbenson 11y ago
  My point was when wealth protection is a tool to bolster innovation, then the incentives are aligned correctly. When people, or more importantly legislators, forget that and think the purpose of patents is to reward for innovation, we get some perverse incentives. In a perfect world, protection would be inversely proportional to the amount of innovation the sector is experiencing, and would also be scaled to the amount the innovation helps. But those are both hard to measure realistically.
sdenton4 11y ago
Individual patents are a corner case that's hardly worth sneezing about. They typically come up in these sorts of conversations in the same way that, say, Monsanto will cry about protecting small farmers while proposing rule changes that let it get away with whole new classes of abuse...