3 ms·

Here is a very similar question on patents.stackexchange.com: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/are-patents-granted-to-the-us-government-public-do

Here is a very similar question on patents.stackexchange.com: http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/are-patents-granted-to-the-us-government-public-domain http://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/9994/are-patents-... Basically, if there's a significant cost to entry, and if the idea were open to anyone, it would discourage anyone from using the patent. With patent licensing there's a barrier to entry that gives a measure of exclusivity that is an additional motivation to anyone taking the idea to market. I'm not really sure that I agree that governments should own and selectively sell ideas, even if for a short time but I can see the logic in that argument.

URSpider94 11y ago
I talked to a government researcher recently who expressed this exact opinion. Ultimately, contractors are the one who build things for the government, whether it's a space shuttle or an aircraft carrier. Patents can provide an incentive for contractors to invest in certain areas by ensuring a measure of exclusivity.
abecedarius 11y ago
There's something perverse in this -- something like, legal impediments to competition are so much the norm that only a loser would want a business without one? If that is the holdup then couldn't we try to reduce this systemic problem instead of adding to it? (I know, a comment like this is probably from dreamland, but I'd like to keep a vacation house there while I can.)
- SapphireSun 11y ago
  The systematic problem is that if there's something expensive and anyone can want in, and the profit margins aren't clearly good, it's too risky to blow all your money on something and maybe not get a return. Maybe the market can fund one entrant but if there are two, and the market share is divided, there's not enough money for each player to cover their costs. A systematic fix would look like one of: - Restrict entry to a single player (patents) - Provide matching funds for each sale These fixes apply to this specific situation. We're talking about the space program, so we're talking large up-front capital costs, which means its possible the situation exists. The patent system is clearly cheaper up front, though the more expensive second option ensures at least some competition, making for an overall better product, but at a very high price.
hollerith 11y ago
That argument (for patents) works just as well as an argument for many other policies that allows a business to exclude competitors from a costly-to-enter market. For example, in 1993 when it became apparent that the web was going to become important, it would have been beneficial for the government -- at least according to the argument you describe -- to auction off the right to develop and distribute web browsers since that would have motivated the winners of the auction to incur the costs to develop a really good web browser. The development of a web browser is after all a significant expense: Mozilla, Google, Apple and Microsoft each sink 100s of millions of dollars a year into their web browsers.

URSpider94 11y ago

I talked to a government researcher recently who expressed this exact opinion. Ultimately, contractors are the one who build things for the government, whether it's a space shuttle or an aircraft carrier. Patents can provide an incentive for contractors to invest in certain areas by ensuring a measure of exclusivity.

abecedarius 11y ago

There's something perverse in this -- something like, legal impediments to competition are so much the norm that only a loser would want a business without one? If that is the holdup then couldn't we try to reduce this systemic problem instead of adding to it? (I know, a comment like this is probably from dreamland, but I'd like to keep a vacation house there while I can.)

SapphireSun 11y ago
The systematic problem is that if there's something expensive and anyone can want in, and the profit margins aren't clearly good, it's too risky to blow all your money on something and maybe not get a return. Maybe the market can fund one entrant but if there are two, and the market share is divided, there's not enough money for each player to cover their costs. A systematic fix would look like one of: - Restrict entry to a single player (patents) - Provide matching funds for each sale These fixes apply to this specific situation. We're talking about the space program, so we're talking large up-front capital costs, which means its possible the situation exists. The patent system is clearly cheaper up front, though the more expensive second option ensures at least some competition, making for an overall better product, but at a very high price.

hollerith 11y ago

That argument (for patents) works just as well as an argument for many other policies that allows a business to exclude competitors from a costly-to-enter market. For example, in 1993 when it became apparent that the web was going to become important, it would have been beneficial for the government -- at least according to the argument you describe -- to auction off the right to develop and distribute web browsers since that would have motivated the winners of the auction to incur the costs to develop a really good web browser. The development of a web browser is after all a significant expense: Mozilla, Google, Apple and Microsoft each sink 100s of millions of dollars a year into their web browsers.