3 ms·

I don't think that the patent system is bad by itself. There was a time when it did bring value to the innovator. It served as a series of rules to describe a r

I don't think that the patent system is bad by itself. There was a time when it did bring value to the innovator. It served as a series of rules to describe a relatively simple system. The negative thing is that it doesn't scale well. It's in need of a serious overhaul or things will only get worse.

kiba 16y ago
So it bring values to the innovators, or maybe a specific group of innovators. Does it bring values to the rest of us? What if the concept is wrong in the first place? Well, two contarian economists doesn't think the system was that great in the first place: It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty. -- Michelle Boldrin and David K. Levine in Against Intellectual Monopoly http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... I think it is a bit presumptious to assume that patents benefit does outweigh the loss at some point in their history. People needs to dig a little deeper than that.