4 ms·

There have been several historical studies done on the effects of patents on innovation, and the results are mixed. For an example of the "patents may hurt inno

by ekidd 10y ago

There have been several historical studies done on the effects of patents on innovation, and the results are mixed. For an example of the "patents may hurt innovation" side, see http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.1.m1004.pdf , which argues that the steam engine patents actually held back the development of superior steam engines, reduced the total horsepower deployed, and even distracted Watt (the inventor) from his business. I've seen more detailed studies of patent history (which I can no longer find, alas), and they make a good case that patents have an ambiguous effects on industrial innovation. I'm not sure if I believe these studies, but I don't think it's an open and shut case either way. Also, steam engines may have different issues than drug development, and drug developent may have different issues than software.

lprubin 10y ago
If you're interested in a book length exploration of patents on the anti-patent side of the argument, I found this book to be well argued: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521879286 http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=978052...
- throwawaykf09 10y ago
  I believe ewatt (edit: Sorry not ewatt, ekidd, the GP) referenced that same book. Here's my take on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13930823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13930823
moomin 10y ago
Drug development is an interesting case, because the costs aren't associated with the research: they're associated with the safety testing. This has horribly distorting effects.
- lordnacho 10y ago
  If that's the case, there's an obvious answer. Don't have patents, have certificates of safety. That way anyone can make a drug, and show consumers that it's been tested safe.
  - mantas 10y ago
    If someone makes a drug and proves it safe, someone else could piggyback on that and say they're making the drug the same way, thus it's safe.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    That was basically the case for the drug that made Martin Shkreli famous. (the drug was long out of patent, his company bought the FDA approved production line and such)
  - 6stringmerc 10y ago
    This is an interesting postulation and one I can support in theory. My reaction though is tempered in the same way when I hear a US Federal Government person (ex: Secretary of Health) claim that a system of "Patient Empowerment and Patient Choice" is an ideal situation. I disagree. Looking at Health Statistics Reality (cough) a large portion of the US Population has made categorically bad decisions. Obesity. Heart Disease by way of contributing factors. I get the rationale behind empowerment and allowing patients to find the "best" care around, but trusting Average Health Consumer to make Medical choices when they can't even get Dietary choices right is problematic.
throwawaykf09 10y ago
While I agree with your overall sentiment, the Levine book is not a good reference. Here's a comment I'd posted about the book in the past: I would be wary of taking that book at its word. The authors have an agenda and they are not afraid to twist historical facts to suit their narrative. I mean, their very first chapter begins with a lie which perpetuates the myth that Watt's patent retarded steam development [1]. When the authors of [1] called out Boldrin and Levine on this, the latter responded by fabricating new myths rather than admit that the truth undermined their narrative [2]. The very chapter you cite itself has such inaccuracies. I did not track down all the stuff they cite, but I did find an instance of mischaracterizing references to suit their view points. For instance, when they discuss the German dyestuff industry, they cite a study by Murmann to support their narrative that Germany dominated in that industry due to the lack of patents. But if you look at the actual study itself, Murmann paints (heh) a very different picture: German dominance in that industry was fueled by close ties with academic research, and later by R&D labs encouraged by, of all things, the newly introduced patent laws: >When in 1877 German patent law protected dye innovations, a few German firms such as Hoechst, BASF, and AGFA saw the advantage of hiring organic chemists whose sole task was to synthesize new dyes. After these research chemists turned out economically successful dyes, firms hired more and more chemists and pioneered an entirely new corporate function, formally organized research. The birth of corporate research and development (R&D), which today is a standard activity in high-tech industries ... can be traced to the German synthetic dye firms in 1880s. By the 1890s the vast majority of dyes were being discovered in the R&D laboratories of Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF. > Whereas in the early days of the industry a firm could exist by copying dyes invented somewhere else, patent laws made the systematic application of science within the boundaries of the firm a critical dimension of remaining a leader in the industry. Moreover: > The most important institution in the early success of the German dye industry was the university system, but patent laws were a second key factor that allowed the German firms to capture a dominant position. With that many assertions in the study that refute their view, they cherry-pick a few comments and actually cite the study as one that supports their view. With so many accuracies in there, I find it hard to take anything else they say in that book at their word. 1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 2. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjrlecon/v_3a5_3ay_3a2009_3ai_3a3_3an_3a7.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjrlecon/v_3a5_3ay_3a20... 3. Murmann JP, 2003, "Knowledge and Competitive Advantage – The Coevolution of Firms, Technologies and National Institutions." - http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003043048.pdf http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003043048.pdf
zeteo 10y ago
For another famous example, the Wright brothers spent most of their latter life litigating patents [1]. Who knows what other great things they might have invented otherwise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Patent_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Patent_war

by ekidd 10y ago

lprubin 10y ago

If you're interested in a book length exploration of patents on the anti-patent side of the argument, I found this book to be well argued: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521879286 http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=978052...

throwawaykf09 10y ago
I believe ewatt (edit: Sorry not ewatt, ekidd, the GP) referenced that same book. Here's my take on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13930823 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13930823

moomin 10y ago

Drug development is an interesting case, because the costs aren't associated with the research: they're associated with the safety testing. This has horribly distorting effects.

lordnacho 10y ago
If that's the case, there's an obvious answer. Don't have patents, have certificates of safety. That way anyone can make a drug, and show consumers that it's been tested safe.
- mantas 10y ago
  If someone makes a drug and proves it safe, someone else could piggyback on that and say they're making the drug the same way, thus it's safe.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  That was basically the case for the drug that made Martin Shkreli famous. (the drug was long out of patent, his company bought the FDA approved production line and such)
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  This is an interesting postulation and one I can support in theory. My reaction though is tempered in the same way when I hear a US Federal Government person (ex: Secretary of Health) claim that a system of "Patient Empowerment and Patient Choice" is an ideal situation. I disagree. Looking at Health Statistics Reality (cough) a large portion of the US Population has made categorically bad decisions. Obesity. Heart Disease by way of contributing factors. I get the rationale behind empowerment and allowing patients to find the "best" care around, but trusting Average Health Consumer to make Medical choices when they can't even get Dietary choices right is problematic.

throwawaykf09 10y ago

While I agree with your overall sentiment, the Levine book is not a good reference. Here's a comment I'd posted about the book in the past: I would be wary of taking that book at its word. The authors have an agenda and they are not afraid to twist historical facts to suit their narrative. I mean, their very first chapter begins with a lie which perpetuates the myth that Watt's patent retarded steam development [1]. When the authors of [1] called out Boldrin and Levine on this, the latter responded by fabricating new myths rather than admit that the truth undermined their narrative [2]. The very chapter you cite itself has such inaccuracies. I did not track down all the stuff they cite, but I did find an instance of mischaracterizing references to suit their view points. For instance, when they discuss the German dyestuff industry, they cite a study by Murmann to support their narrative that Germany dominated in that industry due to the lack of patents. But if you look at the actual study itself, Murmann paints (heh) a very different picture: German dominance in that industry was fueled by close ties with academic research, and later by R&D labs encouraged by, of all things, the newly introduced patent laws: >When in 1877 German patent law protected dye innovations, a few German firms such as Hoechst, BASF, and AGFA saw the advantage of hiring organic chemists whose sole task was to synthesize new dyes. After these research chemists turned out economically successful dyes, firms hired more and more chemists and pioneered an entirely new corporate function, formally organized research. The birth of corporate research and development (R&D), which today is a standard activity in high-tech industries ... can be traced to the German synthetic dye firms in 1880s. By the 1890s the vast majority of dyes were being discovered in the R&D laboratories of Bayer, Hoechst, and BASF. > Whereas in the early days of the industry a firm could exist by copying dyes invented somewhere else, patent laws made the systematic application of science within the boundaries of the firm a critical dimension of remaining a leader in the industry. Moreover: > The most important institution in the early success of the German dye industry was the university system, but patent laws were a second key factor that allowed the German firms to capture a dominant position. With that many assertions in the study that refute their view, they cherry-pick a few comments and actually cite the study as one that supports their view. With so many accuracies in there, I find it hard to take anything else they say in that book at their word. 1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 2. http://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjrlecon/v_3a5_3ay_3a2009_3ai_3a3_3an_3a7.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/article/bpjrlecon/v_3a5_3ay_3a20... 3. Murmann JP, 2003, "Knowledge and Competitive Advantage – The Coevolution of Firms, Technologies and National Institutions." - http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003043048.pdf http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam041/2003043048.pdf

zeteo 10y ago

For another famous example, the Wright brothers spent most of their latter life litigating patents [1]. Who knows what other great things they might have invented otherwise. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Patent_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers#Patent_war