4 ms·

One should question whether the patent system has ever worked in the way that it was intended to. There are examples of a dysfunctional patent system from centu

by exDM69 11y ago

One should question whether the patent system has ever worked in the way that it was intended to. There are examples of a dysfunctional patent system from centuries ago. Just to name a few examples... The often quoted example of steam engines and the patents of James Watt: the power output of steam engines (an objective, quantitative measurement) stagnated during the period Watt's patents were valid. Only after they expired, steam engines started improving. Another example: the contributions of the Wright brothers to modern aviation. The Wrights filed for a lot of patents but most of their inventions fell into obscurity as aircraft manufacturers opted to use patent-free inventions from the Wrights' competitors, such as De Havilland's rear stabilizer design which is still common in modern aircraft. I'm not convinced that the patent system has ever worked to genuinely promote innovation and invention. There are numerous examples of how it has done the exact opposite by stagnating a field of science and technology (e.g. video codecs today). Several high profile inventors such as Thomas Edison have spent the latter days of their lives as businessmen and lawyers protecting their patents and financial interests, not inventing and innovating.

vlehto 11y ago
You could claim that the patent system was raging success. The Wright brothers tried to hinder development of airplanes, but De Havilland managed to circumvent their patent. Creating entirely new technology in the process. Watt on the other hand managed to protect his steam engine patent and went on to invent a copying machine with the money. And Edison, mediocre inventor who luckily made some patent money early with the quadruplex telegraph. Then he could concentrate to his true calling of enslaving scientists. I'm half joking here. But we really can't know how history would have turned out if patents would not exist. So far I'm not convinced with any of the alternatives. Even with the glaring flaws of the current patent system.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  Edison gets a lot of flack for some things he did (especially in the context of Tesla) but he certainly was a great inventor. Many of his inventions did come from working with the people he employed, but they were nowhere near "enslaved". No more than employees at Google or Facebook are. Furthermore, a lot of the accusations levied against him are just outright false. For instance, the "electrocution of an elephant": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_%28elephant%29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_%28elephant%29 Edit - more about Edison: http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/02/oatmeal_comic_about_tesla_and.html http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/02/oatmeal_comic_...
  - vlehto 11y ago
    It was joke, but thanks for the correction. I'd like to point out that leading scientists to make big bunch of inventions would be great feat in it's own right. Leadership alone is diffucult, scientists don't accept just anybody as their superior and you need expert level hunch about technology too.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
The story of the Watt patent holding up steam development has been busted as a myth: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 The Wright patent certainly was influential and used all over the place. Their litigation did force the invention of alternatives. Innovation through forced workarounds had long been one of the rationalizations of patent systems. However, very few of them were non-infringing. Indeed a criticism of their patents was that they were way too broad and covered everything, but courts time and again gave them broad scope because they were deemed that inventive. As an aside, before anyone brings it up, the related story that the Wright patent held back the US airplane industry has also been shown to be a myth, as demonstrated by industrial data fun the period: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 If you think work is stagnating in video codecs, it's mostly because the low hanging fruit had been picked. Examples of the patent system creating benefits (as well as costs) can be readily found by searching ssrn for keywords around patents. Focus on studies that use empirical data. Also if one study looks too convincing, look for others that cite it, there may be one that busts it :-) A lot of the conceptions people have about patents are based on falsehoods and uncritical acceptance of what somebody on the internet said. This need not be the case when we have a number of relevant studies to look at.
- exDM69 11y ago
  Thanks for the links. They might not convince me to change my views on patents but it's always nice to get the facts straight. Video codecs certainly have had the low hanging fruit picked, but if you look at the situation with video on the web today (ie. consumer level tech, not state of the art), the situation is not much better than in 1998 (to exaggerate a little): we're still using badly implemented browser plugins. We use Flash video because Adobe et al have the patent issue covered. Yes, HTML5 video exists but the actual codecs are such an IP and patent minefield that out-of-the-box support for video (esp. in open source browsers) isn't really ready for prime time.

by exDM69 11y ago

vlehto 11y ago

You could claim that the patent system was raging success. The Wright brothers tried to hinder development of airplanes, but De Havilland managed to circumvent their patent. Creating entirely new technology in the process. Watt on the other hand managed to protect his steam engine patent and went on to invent a copying machine with the money. And Edison, mediocre inventor who luckily made some patent money early with the quadruplex telegraph. Then he could concentrate to his true calling of enslaving scientists. I'm half joking here. But we really can't know how history would have turned out if patents would not exist. So far I'm not convinced with any of the alternatives. Even with the glaring flaws of the current patent system.

throwawaykf05 11y ago
Edison gets a lot of flack for some things he did (especially in the context of Tesla) but he certainly was a great inventor. Many of his inventions did come from working with the people he employed, but they were nowhere near "enslaved". No more than employees at Google or Facebook are. Furthermore, a lot of the accusations levied against him are just outright false. For instance, the "electrocution of an elephant": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_%28elephant%29 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_%28elephant%29 Edit - more about Edison: http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/02/oatmeal_comic_about_tesla_and.html http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2013/02/oatmeal_comic_...
- vlehto 11y ago
  It was joke, but thanks for the correction. I'd like to point out that leading scientists to make big bunch of inventions would be great feat in it's own right. Leadership alone is diffucult, scientists don't accept just anybody as their superior and you need expert level hunch about technology too.

throwawaykf05 11y ago

The story of the Watt patent holding up steam development has been busted as a myth: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 The Wright patent certainly was influential and used all over the place. Their litigation did force the invention of alternatives. Innovation through forced workarounds had long been one of the rationalizations of patent systems. However, very few of them were non-infringing. Indeed a criticism of their patents was that they were way too broad and covered everything, but courts time and again gave them broad scope because they were deemed that inventive. As an aside, before anyone brings it up, the related story that the Wright patent held back the US airplane industry has also been shown to be a myth, as demonstrated by industrial data fun the period: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 If you think work is stagnating in video codecs, it's mostly because the low hanging fruit had been picked. Examples of the patent system creating benefits (as well as costs) can be readily found by searching ssrn for keywords around patents. Focus on studies that use empirical data. Also if one study looks too convincing, look for others that cite it, there may be one that busts it :-) A lot of the conceptions people have about patents are based on falsehoods and uncritical acceptance of what somebody on the internet said. This need not be the case when we have a number of relevant studies to look at.

exDM69 11y ago
Thanks for the links. They might not convince me to change my views on patents but it's always nice to get the facts straight. Video codecs certainly have had the low hanging fruit picked, but if you look at the situation with video on the web today (ie. consumer level tech, not state of the art), the situation is not much better than in 1998 (to exaggerate a little): we're still using badly implemented browser plugins. We use Flash video because Adobe et al have the patent issue covered. Yes, HTML5 video exists but the actual codecs are such an IP and patent minefield that out-of-the-box support for video (esp. in open source browsers) isn't really ready for prime time.