3 ms·

Patents (and any other IP protection except trademarks) are based on two competing objectives: (a) increase invention (b) increased distribution of invention

Patents (and any other IP protection except trademarks) are based on two competing objectives: (a) increase invention (b) increased distribution of invention The mechanism of a time-limited protection tries to increase (a) at the cost of (b). Any discussion must start with the acknowledgement that both goals have merit, and that the mechanism of how IP law affects them is basically sound. There's obviously a point of diminishing returns in the time-limits. For example I'd argue that the money earned "70 years after the death of the creator" contributes very little to the motivation of today's writers. On the other hand, very few people will argue that an exclusive right to sell a book for the first year has never in history influenced a writer's decisions. It's impossible to find the exact point where the curves meet without looking at a lot of actual data, and it's probably different for every product.

contravariant 10y ago
For the most part I agree with what you said, however there are a few points that I think you've gone a bit too far. I agree that both goals you mentioned have merit, but I think it's going to far to say that the mechanism of IP law is necessarily sound. Granting exclusive right to an invention might be the obvious solution, but is not without problems, so I don't think it's right to dismiss any discussion that doesn't affirm IP law to be basically sound. Secondly, the exclusive right to sell a book (or more generally, the reproduction of any work) for one year, did no exist for large parts of history, so I don't see how it could possibly have influenced a writer's decisions during those times. At the very least it's not the case that books don't get written without copyright.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I was trying to speak against the very error you seem to be making, i. e. the idea that IP rights have either only good or only bad effects. They're always trying to strike a balance between conflicting goals. Would any books be written without copyright? Yes, of course – although the laws go back to the 17th century, so it's hard to argue that there ever was a golden time of freedom, considering the printing press was newish at the time and the collective creative output has, even per-capita or GDP-adjusted, increased by about a dozen orders of magnitude. The two mechanisms which I consider "basically sound" is that (a) financial incentives generally work to stimulate creative output. It's not the only motive driving the useful arts, but you'll have a really hard time showing that it's a net-negative, considering that limitless evidence for the efficacy of financial incentives. The other mechanism is (b) that the restrictions on distribution created by IP laws diminish the actual usefulness of creative output, which includes the number of people having access to it as one factor. Both mechanisms are obvious, yet they work in opposite directions. The total benefit of IP is (simplified) <works created, i. e (a)> * <people reached, i. e. (b)>. There are some examples for how to avoid this conundrum, such as 'fair use', or the government (or interested groups/individuals) buying IP rights and donating to the public domain. I also believe quite firmly that copyright terms of death+70 years are far beyond the point where they create enough benefits in (a) to offset the losses in (b). The situation for patents is a bit more murky.

contravariant 10y ago

For the most part I agree with what you said, however there are a few points that I think you've gone a bit too far. I agree that both goals you mentioned have merit, but I think it's going to far to say that the mechanism of IP law is necessarily sound. Granting exclusive right to an invention might be the obvious solution, but is not without problems, so I don't think it's right to dismiss any discussion that doesn't affirm IP law to be basically sound. Secondly, the exclusive right to sell a book (or more generally, the reproduction of any work) for one year, did no exist for large parts of history, so I don't see how it could possibly have influenced a writer's decisions during those times. At the very least it's not the case that books don't get written without copyright.

matt4077 10y ago
I was trying to speak against the very error you seem to be making, i. e. the idea that IP rights have either only good or only bad effects. They're always trying to strike a balance between conflicting goals. Would any books be written without copyright? Yes, of course – although the laws go back to the 17th century, so it's hard to argue that there ever was a golden time of freedom, considering the printing press was newish at the time and the collective creative output has, even per-capita or GDP-adjusted, increased by about a dozen orders of magnitude. The two mechanisms which I consider "basically sound" is that (a) financial incentives generally work to stimulate creative output. It's not the only motive driving the useful arts, but you'll have a really hard time showing that it's a net-negative, considering that limitless evidence for the efficacy of financial incentives. The other mechanism is (b) that the restrictions on distribution created by IP laws diminish the actual usefulness of creative output, which includes the number of people having access to it as one factor. Both mechanisms are obvious, yet they work in opposite directions. The total benefit of IP is (simplified) <works created, i. e (a)> * <people reached, i. e. (b)>. There are some examples for how to avoid this conundrum, such as 'fair use', or the government (or interested groups/individuals) buying IP rights and donating to the public domain. I also believe quite firmly that copyright terms of death+70 years are far beyond the point where they create enough benefits in (a) to offset the losses in (b). The situation for patents is a bit more murky.