6 ms·

When Japan opened up to the West, Korekiyo Takahashi visited the US in 1886. "We said, 'What is it that makes the United States such a great nation?' And we inv

When Japan opened up to the West, Korekiyo Takahashi visited the US in 1886. "We said, 'What is it that makes the United States such a great nation?' And we investigated and we found that it was patents, and we will have patents." http://www.iphalloffame.com/korekiyo_takahashi/ http://www.iphalloffame.com/korekiyo_takahashi/ You need to reward innovators or you won't have innovation.

philovivero 10y ago
The patent system no longer rewards innovation. At best, it's a non-participant and at worst it quashes innovation. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anything else you wrote, just clarifying what I think is a point you left ambiguous.
- CalChris 10y ago
  If I was ambiguous, it was unintentional. I'm very pro-patent and moreover, I'm always surprised with opposition to them at the engineer level. I haven't met any entrepreneurs who were anti-patent. I rather disagree that patents don't reward innovation; that is exactly what they do. As Lincoln said, The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius. Lincoln was among many many things, a patent attorney.
  - spatz 10y ago
    Any quotes newer than 19th century?
    - CalChris 10y ago
      Damn. And I was gonna quote Twain: for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn't travel any way but sideways or backways
    - vocatus_gate 10y ago
      > Any quotes newer than 19th century? What you're doing is called Chronological Snobbery, acting as if an idea or concept has no value simply because of age.
- COGlory 10y ago
  > The patent system no longer rewards innovation. At best, it's a non-participant and at worst it quashes innovation. > I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anything else you wrote, just clarifying what I think is a point you left ambiguous. That's a ridiculous oversimplification.
aquadrop 10y ago
Patent lifespan of 20 years maybe was ok in 1886, but it's too long now, when multiple tech revolutions can happen in 20 years.
- CalChris 10y ago
  They were 17 years in 1886. We've increased them to 20 years to harmonize with Europe, China, ... and gone First To File. I think both of these changes are improvements.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- CalChris 10y ago
  BTW, that multiple tech revolutions can happen in 20 years point argues for longer not shorter patent terms. If at great effort and expense, I develop and patent a nuclear powered widget and then four years from now the market moves on to quantum-based widgets, why should my nuclear powered widget patent have a shorter patent term? If a patent is an incentive for me to invent (and it is) then increasing the velocity of technology while keeping RD costs constant and then shortening the patent term dis-incents me.
  - aquadrop 10y ago
    Of course any creator of patented nuclear powered widget wants the patent to exist longer, not shorter, because it's easier to make money. But shortening patent life is for world progress' sake, here the most beneficial strategy for individual might be not the most beneficial strategy for the world. Progress is in many ways evolutionary and future inventions are based on the previous ones. So if you would make patents indefinite in time, you'd effectively remove this step from progress and will make it work around (also disincentives creator of patented technology to innovate, if it's market leader it can also slow down everything), possibly slowing it down. Patents make sure that inventor have time to return investments, it's a balance exercise. Nowadays world communicates/works on much faster speed and contains much more people/companies that's why I think this balance should be moved to the shorter patent length.
code_duck 10y ago
Okay, so that is what a Japanese person in the 1880s thought. I'm not convinced yet.
ue_ 10y ago
>You need to reward innovators or you won't have innovation. It's unfortunate that the "reward" needs to come in the form of a monopoly over an idea. The fact that ideas themselves are valuable is such a capitalistic thing. I don't believe copyright or patents are justified enough; the idea that someone can force you not to implement a particular algorithm or not to share some data with your neighbor, I find it ridiculous. I have no respect for "IP", and no respect for private property. Down with the monopolies over what we can say and make and share, and down with the state that protects it.
- COGlory 10y ago
  You can't patent an idea. You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
- CalChris 10y ago
  I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. While a house guest of the state should you continue to act on your ideas there, then daily you will be rather forcefully reminded of their inadequacy.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    >I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. I appreciate your concern, but I don't think an unjust law has weight; the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison. Not because I believe they are right. And the laws I break I do so when there is a smaller risk of being caught. Being a citizen is by no means being a house guest, as I am forced to be a house guest of some state anyway. I regard the state is illegitimate.
    - CalChris 10y ago
      > the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison Ok, so you are aware of disincentives. Well, patents are incentives.

philovivero 10y ago

The patent system no longer rewards innovation. At best, it's a non-participant and at worst it quashes innovation. I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anything else you wrote, just clarifying what I think is a point you left ambiguous.

CalChris 10y ago
If I was ambiguous, it was unintentional. I'm very pro-patent and moreover, I'm always surprised with opposition to them at the engineer level. I haven't met any entrepreneurs who were anti-patent. I rather disagree that patents don't reward innovation; that is exactly what they do. As Lincoln said, The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius. Lincoln was among many many things, a patent attorney.
- spatz 10y ago
  Any quotes newer than 19th century?
  - CalChris 10y ago
    Damn. And I was gonna quote Twain: for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab, and couldn't travel any way but sideways or backways
  - vocatus_gate 10y ago
    > Any quotes newer than 19th century? What you're doing is called Chronological Snobbery, acting as if an idea or concept has no value simply because of age.
COGlory 10y ago
> The patent system no longer rewards innovation. At best, it's a non-participant and at worst it quashes innovation. > I'm not trying to agree or disagree with anything else you wrote, just clarifying what I think is a point you left ambiguous. That's a ridiculous oversimplification.

aquadrop 10y ago

Patent lifespan of 20 years maybe was ok in 1886, but it's too long now, when multiple tech revolutions can happen in 20 years.

CalChris 10y ago
They were 17 years in 1886. We've increased them to 20 years to harmonize with Europe, China, ... and gone First To File. I think both of these changes are improvements.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
CalChris 10y ago
BTW, that multiple tech revolutions can happen in 20 years point argues for longer not shorter patent terms. If at great effort and expense, I develop and patent a nuclear powered widget and then four years from now the market moves on to quantum-based widgets, why should my nuclear powered widget patent have a shorter patent term? If a patent is an incentive for me to invent (and it is) then increasing the velocity of technology while keeping RD costs constant and then shortening the patent term dis-incents me.
- aquadrop 10y ago
  Of course any creator of patented nuclear powered widget wants the patent to exist longer, not shorter, because it's easier to make money. But shortening patent life is for world progress' sake, here the most beneficial strategy for individual might be not the most beneficial strategy for the world. Progress is in many ways evolutionary and future inventions are based on the previous ones. So if you would make patents indefinite in time, you'd effectively remove this step from progress and will make it work around (also disincentives creator of patented technology to innovate, if it's market leader it can also slow down everything), possibly slowing it down. Patents make sure that inventor have time to return investments, it's a balance exercise. Nowadays world communicates/works on much faster speed and contains much more people/companies that's why I think this balance should be moved to the shorter patent length.

code_duck 10y ago

Okay, so that is what a Japanese person in the 1880s thought. I'm not convinced yet.

ue_ 10y ago

>You need to reward innovators or you won't have innovation. It's unfortunate that the "reward" needs to come in the form of a monopoly over an idea. The fact that ideas themselves are valuable is such a capitalistic thing. I don't believe copyright or patents are justified enough; the idea that someone can force you not to implement a particular algorithm or not to share some data with your neighbor, I find it ridiculous. I have no respect for "IP", and no respect for private property. Down with the monopolies over what we can say and make and share, and down with the state that protects it.

COGlory 10y ago
You can't patent an idea. You can only patent an implementation of an idea.
CalChris 10y ago
I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. While a house guest of the state should you continue to act on your ideas there, then daily you will be rather forcefully reminded of their inadequacy.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. I appreciate your concern, but I don't think an unjust law has weight; the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison. Not because I believe they are right. And the laws I break I do so when there is a smaller risk of being caught. Being a citizen is by no means being a house guest, as I am forced to be a house guest of some state anyway. I regard the state is illegitimate.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    > the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison Ok, so you are aware of disincentives. Well, patents are incentives.