4 ms·

I've found plenty of research that concludes that patents hinder innovation. I have been able to find any studies that conclude that patents help innovation. C

I've found plenty of research that concludes that patents hinder innovation. I have been able to find any studies that conclude that patents help innovation. Can somebody provide links if there are any? I only see the number of patents mentioned as "evidence" of innovation.

njl 16y ago
What about drug discovery? The road to approval is a long, risky, and amazingly expensive one. Without patent protection, there wouldn't be a lot of incentive to develop new drugs. I think, as software people, we tend to generalize the ridiculousness of software patents, and we decide that all patents are ridiculous. There are industries where innovation is the result of serious risk and serious investment, and it is in everyone's best interest to encourage that. The rub is figuring out which industries and which classes of innovation should be protected, and which should not be protected.
- binspace 16y ago
  > What about drug discovery? I can see how patents could help there. Are there any studies that favor patents?
- blahedo 16y ago
  Even with patent protection, there's only direct incentive to develop new drugs for rich people, who can pay for them---which is why you don't see as much research on medicines for malaria as, say, erectile dysfunction.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Is that true? Is there really less research on medicines for malaria than erectile dysfunction? I've met a whole bunch of malaria researchers, but never an erectile dysfunction researcher.
    - cma 16y ago
      It is clear from the context that he is talking about private-market research, not NSF funded university research, etc.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    good point I would also argue that a lot of people invest in finding a solution to problems that affect themselves or loved ones without any thought to the possible financial return. The cure is what they want and its worth spending money to obtain.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  I'm working on a medical device, so can't say I am only thinking about software patents. I would suggest the bounty system as a way to deal with the need for CURES to disease. Or treatments if cures are not possible. There is a cost to innovating and a cost of dealing with the government. Yes, dealing with the government is a very expensive process. Ensuring safety is important. Does the current approach accomplish this? Some would question that it does. Still, whoever pays that bill and takes the risk of never being paid back should get a fair return if successful. If one feels that the government has the right to create this enormous regulatory burden, than it can certainly assign the benefits of going through all of that to the one paying the bills for a sufficient time to recover those costs. I qualify that because I don't quite agree the government should be involved or that coercion is necessary, but that is a whole other can of worms. If there is a benefit to be had, there is a price worth paying. I just don't automatically assume government is the way to make that happen. We are quite used to seeing government or coercion as the method, but I think other mechanisms can make the same beneficial occur. For the most part, I think government is a far greater impediment to many good things than most people realize. But I give your comment a point. Its a valid concern.
edanm 16y ago
I'm guessing that less research exists because it's not as "sexy". The patent system exists, the assumption is that it works. Why would anyone think to do a study to prove it? On the other hand, proving that it doesn't work is certainly an interesting research topic.
- gwern 16y ago
  Everyone who is invested in patents has massive incentive to fund such research, especially in cases like the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Is the patent office really going to fund or support research to the effect that the patent office should be abolished?
kjuhygfgbhjnm 16y ago
The usual arguement is William Smellie's forceps. He was a doctor in the 1700s that invented the forceps used to deliver babies, but because if he publicized them anybody else would have copied the idea he kept them secret. They were independantly rediscovered about a century later - but how many lives were lost in those 100years!
- gridspy 16y ago
  Of course if he used them today the new father would tweet about it and the secret would be out.
  - artsrc 16y ago
    He carefully hid them from both the father and the mother.

njl 16y ago

What about drug discovery? The road to approval is a long, risky, and amazingly expensive one. Without patent protection, there wouldn't be a lot of incentive to develop new drugs. I think, as software people, we tend to generalize the ridiculousness of software patents, and we decide that all patents are ridiculous. There are industries where innovation is the result of serious risk and serious investment, and it is in everyone's best interest to encourage that. The rub is figuring out which industries and which classes of innovation should be protected, and which should not be protected.

binspace 16y ago
> What about drug discovery? I can see how patents could help there. Are there any studies that favor patents?
blahedo 16y ago
Even with patent protection, there's only direct incentive to develop new drugs for rich people, who can pay for them---which is why you don't see as much research on medicines for malaria as, say, erectile dysfunction.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Is that true? Is there really less research on medicines for malaria than erectile dysfunction? I've met a whole bunch of malaria researchers, but never an erectile dysfunction researcher.
  - cma 16y ago
    It is clear from the context that he is talking about private-market research, not NSF funded university research, etc.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  good point I would also argue that a lot of people invest in finding a solution to problems that affect themselves or loved ones without any thought to the possible financial return. The cure is what they want and its worth spending money to obtain.
stretchwithme 16y ago
I'm working on a medical device, so can't say I am only thinking about software patents. I would suggest the bounty system as a way to deal with the need for CURES to disease. Or treatments if cures are not possible. There is a cost to innovating and a cost of dealing with the government. Yes, dealing with the government is a very expensive process. Ensuring safety is important. Does the current approach accomplish this? Some would question that it does. Still, whoever pays that bill and takes the risk of never being paid back should get a fair return if successful. If one feels that the government has the right to create this enormous regulatory burden, than it can certainly assign the benefits of going through all of that to the one paying the bills for a sufficient time to recover those costs. I qualify that because I don't quite agree the government should be involved or that coercion is necessary, but that is a whole other can of worms. If there is a benefit to be had, there is a price worth paying. I just don't automatically assume government is the way to make that happen. We are quite used to seeing government or coercion as the method, but I think other mechanisms can make the same beneficial occur. For the most part, I think government is a far greater impediment to many good things than most people realize. But I give your comment a point. Its a valid concern.

edanm 16y ago

I'm guessing that less research exists because it's not as "sexy". The patent system exists, the assumption is that it works. Why would anyone think to do a study to prove it? On the other hand, proving that it doesn't work is certainly an interesting research topic.

gwern 16y ago
Everyone who is invested in patents has massive incentive to fund such research, especially in cases like the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Is the patent office really going to fund or support research to the effect that the patent office should be abolished?

kjuhygfgbhjnm 16y ago

The usual arguement is William Smellie's forceps. He was a doctor in the 1700s that invented the forceps used to deliver babies, but because if he publicized them anybody else would have copied the idea he kept them secret. They were independantly rediscovered about a century later - but how many lives were lost in those 100years!

gridspy 16y ago
Of course if he used them today the new father would tweet about it and the secret would be out.
- artsrc 16y ago
  He carefully hid them from both the father and the mother.