4 ms·

> On the contrary, the presence of patents tend to slow down innovation. I believe we may have had this exchange before, but they is no empirical evidence of t

> On the contrary, the presence of patents tend to slow down innovation. I believe we may have had this exchange before, but they is no empirical evidence of that. At most there have been apocryphal examples that have mostly been debunked. There are a ton of empirical studies showing the benefits (increased r&d spending, vc investments, etc.) and costs (potential for patent holdup, thickets, etc) of patent systems, but nobody has ever been able to show that innovation itself is harmed or spurred. I'd guess this is mainly because it is almost impossible to define "innovation" precisely enough to measure it.

loup-vaillant 11y ago
Extremely short argument: I have read Against Intellectual Monopoly, and found the arguments compelling (I trust there were no major factual inaccuracy). http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
- wstrange 11y ago
  Just want to second this book recommendation. They cite examples of industries that have prospered without patent protection. Outside of pharma, the pro-patent position seems quite weak. And even for pharma there may be better models (lotteries, bounties for drugs, public funding)
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  I guessed that would come up :-) Unfortunately, that book contains many fabrications and mischaracterizations of other work, which calls into question anything they say. A previous comment pointing this out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7889290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7889290 Another example of similar shenanigans from the same authors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8157206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8157206
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kelnos 11y ago
Is there any empirical evidence to the contrary? Do these studies show that the increased R&D spending, VC investments, etc., are there specifically due to patent protection, and would otherwise not happen without? It seems crazy to think that would be true. As much as I hate to defend big pharma, I can at least understand their need to patent things: billions of dollars in research scuttled in an instant after a new drug comes on the market and everyone and their mother copies it. But for many fields (such as software) that argument just doesn't apply. And on top of that, when I think about the money wasted on defending patent suits (and often settling because it's more costly to win), and the money wasted on filing for patents in the first place (both in legal fees, and lost productivity tying up people's time documenting things for patent lawyers and reviewing findings)... I really can't see how our patent system actually makes us more innovative.
- cornholio 11y ago
  Big pharma is a very peculiar industry: it's saddled with millions of dollars in compliance costs and regulation so as to not kill the population. A government mandated intellectual monopoly could be justified there, to compensate the inherent costs of safe medical innovation. By comparison, the tech industry has zero compliance costs and it's essentially a wild west.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  > Is there any empirical evidence to the contrary? Do these studies show that the increased R&D spending, VC investments, etc., are there specifically due to patent protection, and would otherwise not happen without? Many of these studies do attempt to support their conclusions as rigorously as possible. This is unfortunately not enough because of the lack of sufficient data or contextual information. But as an example, some studies take specific events in history, such as the introduction of patent laws (or strengthening thereof for a specific field) in a certain country, and compare various metrics (e.g. derived from industrial data) before and after these events. As you can imagine, it is almost impossible to show direct causation, but these studies do find strong correlations. Note that this is true for studies showing positive as well as negative effects of patent systems.

loup-vaillant 11y ago

Extremely short argument: I have read Against Intellectual Monopoly, and found the arguments compelling (I trust there were no major factual inaccuracy). http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

wstrange 11y ago
Just want to second this book recommendation. They cite examples of industries that have prospered without patent protection. Outside of pharma, the pro-patent position seems quite weak. And even for pharma there may be better models (lotteries, bounties for drugs, public funding)
throwawaykf05 11y ago
I guessed that would come up :-) Unfortunately, that book contains many fabrications and mischaracterizations of other work, which calls into question anything they say. A previous comment pointing this out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7889290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7889290 Another example of similar shenanigans from the same authors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8157206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8157206

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kelnos 11y ago

Is there any empirical evidence to the contrary? Do these studies show that the increased R&D spending, VC investments, etc., are there specifically due to patent protection, and would otherwise not happen without? It seems crazy to think that would be true. As much as I hate to defend big pharma, I can at least understand their need to patent things: billions of dollars in research scuttled in an instant after a new drug comes on the market and everyone and their mother copies it. But for many fields (such as software) that argument just doesn't apply. And on top of that, when I think about the money wasted on defending patent suits (and often settling because it's more costly to win), and the money wasted on filing for patents in the first place (both in legal fees, and lost productivity tying up people's time documenting things for patent lawyers and reviewing findings)... I really can't see how our patent system actually makes us more innovative.

cornholio 11y ago
Big pharma is a very peculiar industry: it's saddled with millions of dollars in compliance costs and regulation so as to not kill the population. A government mandated intellectual monopoly could be justified there, to compensate the inherent costs of safe medical innovation. By comparison, the tech industry has zero compliance costs and it's essentially a wild west.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
> Is there any empirical evidence to the contrary? Do these studies show that the increased R&D spending, VC investments, etc., are there specifically due to patent protection, and would otherwise not happen without? Many of these studies do attempt to support their conclusions as rigorously as possible. This is unfortunately not enough because of the lack of sufficient data or contextual information. But as an example, some studies take specific events in history, such as the introduction of patent laws (or strengthening thereof for a specific field) in a certain country, and compare various metrics (e.g. derived from industrial data) before and after these events. As you can imagine, it is almost impossible to show direct causation, but these studies do find strong correlations. Note that this is true for studies showing positive as well as negative effects of patent systems.