4 ms·

Here's a study you might be interested in reading: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2013/05/do-patents-help-or-hinder-innovation/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/

• gnaritas 10y ago
  Seems to agree with me, however, I don't need a study to know that legally preventing people from copying other people, prevents all of those other people from making progress. Patents make copying into theft, but copying is not theft. The reason we have patents is not to grant patent holders a monopoly, it's to ensure society doesn't lose knowledge that might otherwise be locked up in trade secrets; granting patent holders a limited monopoly is not the goal, it is the means by which the goal is achieved, making secrets public knowledge. The system has however gotten out of hand and patents are now collected and used as legal weapons against competitors to prevent competition. Software patents in particular, should not exist, and are rarely enforced because virtually everyone violates software patents on a daily basis as the patent office is too ignorant to know what should and should not be patent-able.
  • Nomentatus 10y ago
    It took James Watt a very long time to find a partner to fund his invention. Without a patent, that partnership wouldn't have happened. That doesn't mean that our IP law or practice is current or ideal; it's not a binary choice.
    • dredmorbius 10y ago
      What financing alternatives might have worked other than patents?
      • Nomentatus 10y ago
        None that were available to Watts, certainly. Developing a new technology at the bleeding edge took a lot of money, even then. Steam engines useful for warships were so far in the future that military funds weren't an option.
        • dredmorbius 10y ago
          To the contrary. There were a number of mechanisms instituted over the years to protect and promote the spread and continuation of technical arts and knowledge: 1. Guilds. Frowned upon, but not without their uses, benefits, and sound arguments. (Actually, part of Watts' problem was that he was thrown out of the Hammermen's Guild -- the black-smithing union, in Scotland, from which Adam Smith had Watt installed at the University of Edinburgh.) 2. A royal charter. Rather than a patent, say, the formation of a public corporation (similar to, say, the contemporaneous British East India Corporation), to which subscribers could buy shares and steam power be distributed throughout England (this was pre-Unification). 3. A royal or parliamentary award or prize. This was offered to several other of the major inventors of industrial technology (largely in the textiles trade). 4. An obligatory license. This would have allowed Watt a share of revenues on his invention, but not limited the rights of others to enter into trade. 5. A guaranteed or favourable government contract. This is essentially what Eli Whitney secured, not with his cotton gin, but with his mass-produced arms, in the United States. And from whence he gained most his financial gains. That's just off the top of my head. Patents are both tremendously distortionary, and not particularly good at rewarding actual inventors.
          • Nomentatus 10y ago
            An obligatory license is a kind of patent. That modifications of our current patent system are possible is not something I'm likely to argue against, and haven't here. The guy tried. That a spaceship or marvelous benefactor or coincidental prize could have landed and paid him money is true, but not probable. Governments weren't in the business of mining (the application then.) They had no interest, but in any case do you really want them picking winners today? Their record is horrible in that way. You cite a military example with Eli Whitney, but I had answered that in advance. As for industry prizes only he understood that such an advance in fuel-efficiency was possible. I really don't think you've ever tried to sell an idea of this kind.