4 ms·

Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines the industrial revolution could have been delayed far l

Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines the industrial revolution could have been delayed far longer than 20 years, or perhaps not have even happened at all. For instance, the Romans had toys that used steam, but the technology never made the leap to a productive use in the form of steam engines. One theory is that the vast use of slave labor in Rome meant that there was no economic impetus for the discovery of labor saving technologies. By the time the market was right for labor saving technology the basic technology used in the toy had largely been forgotten. Another example is metallurgy in pre-Columbian America. To our knowledge, the Native Americans in North America never developed the technology to melt, smelt, cast or alloy metals. This was despite the fact that bronze alloys had been in use in the old world for over 6000 years by the time Columbus landed on the New World, and iron smelting had been in use for nearly 2500 years. Innovation and invention do not exist in a vacuum. They are closely tied to the time and place where they occurred. So, yes, it would be entirely possible that electricity never would have existed if patent law was different 200+ years ago.

logicallee 9y ago
>Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines yep, it's entirely possible that overly broad patents would have completely killed all innovation in the 20th century and we would not have electricity, internal combustion, patent medicines, flight, and in fact we would probably be flinging feces at each other. We would have probably forgotten how to read and write, under too broad of a patent regime. (Sorry I'm dripping with sarcasm again, the statement I quoted you making is just so ridiculously wrong.) By the way as wrong as you are, don't you think you should expand on your wrongness by at least trying to apply a wrong analysis of patent law to Roman times? Can't you at least speculate that somehow your wrong ideas are what kept the Romans from having an industrial revolution of their own? I know they didn't have a patent law but for the sake of the narrative can't you lie and say they had very broad patents which completely stifled innovation? It would help your comment hang together better than your historical example from societies that did not have the benefit of patent law. Just make the argument, somehow, that patents are what led firstly to the Roman civilization never developing internal combustion, electricity, modern metallurgy, or a host of modern inventions, and, secondly, maybe you could somehow expand the lie to show that the patent regime is what caused their downfall as a civilization. I know you could work it in there. you're already so wrong, it really is within your reach. just try your best. Thank you for standing up for innovation. I think we can all agree that lying and being wrong about truth and history is a small price to pay in exchange for preventing our grandchildren from growing up in an illiterate world without electricity and where they have to eck out a living scrawling modern art out of feces. clearly this is where broad patents lead, and the fact that history has never shown this to be the case is just a coincidence. Is the fact that something has never happened a good reason to believe that it doesn't happen inevitably, and all the time? No, it just means that as a society we've been incredibly lucky. Like astronomically. It's all been one lottery win after another after another - the whole industrial revolution and all of the twentieth century. It can't go on forever. We need to take a stand against (broad) patents. They lead to the exact opposite of what they have been shown to lead to in every society that has ever had them. What happens is NOT descriptive of what happens. Only a fool would study history to see how things happen. Much better would be to write some lies about patent law in Roman times. I look forward to reading it. (sorry about my tone - you're just so wrong, I can't reply in any other way.)
- Sinergy2 9y ago
  Suppose that patents had prevented 90% of useful inventions and overall progress over the last century. That is, imagine that for every 10 inventions you can list from the 1900s, 9 had been prevented. Do you agree that would have been a negative outcome? Now ask yourself whether that outcome would have changed your conclusion today. If not--that is, if you can imagine finding enough material in the remaining 10% (without knowing about the missing 90%) to point out as proof that patents didn't limit innovation--then try extrapolating that out to imagine the difference between the dribble of inventions we saw in the 20th century vs. what could have been. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
  - logicallee 9y ago
    Firstly, I take your present comment very seriously because you write with great rigor. You direct me to run a thought experiment ("Suppose that patents had prevented 90% of useful inventions"). This is good. Presently, we will both be right: because either you are wrong and will change your mind or I am wrong and I will change [edit:my] mind. We have simply calculated different results and because you are willing to direct thought experiments, we will soon see which result is correct. However, since you directed me to run a thought experiment I must point out that you did not complete the task I just assigned you. I told you to make up a lie that a broad and powerful patent regime is the reason that 1) the ancient Romans did not have an industrial revolution and 2) led to their downfall. I directed you to blame a broad patent system on this, however you did not do so. Let me set this aside and look at the task you assigned. You directed me to imagine that in the past century 90% of useful inventions and overall progress were prevented by patents. That is, you directed me to run a thought experiment where the patent system does not exist from the twentieth century, and you directed me to interpret the conclusion that under such a scenario as of 2017 there are 10n useful inventions, or the overall level of innovation or utility is 10n, where the current level is only n. Okay, let me write this state of affairs descriptively: -> From the Enlightenment onward, science and rational study took a front row in society. The Monarchy instituted a system of patents meant in part to support inventors and inventions. Progress accelerated until 1900. This saw the creation of the steam engine, industrial combustion, electricity, and many important inventions. Before we changed history to abolish all patents, the Wright brothers around this time were bicycle mechanics who relied on patents to justify their investment in mechanics. Prior to rewriting history, here is a description of the Wright brothers (how things actually happened): "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control, which enabled the pilot to steer the aircraft effectively and to maintain its equilibrium.[4][5][6][7] This method became and remains standard on fixed-wing aircraft of all kinds.[8][9] From the beginning of their aeronautical work, the Wright brothers focused on developing a reliable method of pilot control as the key to solving 'the flying problem'. This approach differed significantly from other experimenters of the time who put more emphasis on developing powerful engines.[10] Using a small homebuilt wind tunnel, the Wrights also collected more accurate data than any before, enabling them to design and build wings and propellers that were more efficient than any before.[11][12] Their first U.S. patent, 821,393, did not claim invention of a flying machine, but rather, the invention of a system of aerodynamic control that manipulated a flying machine's surfaces" As you can see, they invested huge amounts of time and equipment into a literal wind tunnel. Why? Because they were attempting to bring patentable inventions to a broad audience. You ask me to imagine that this is n. But now we abolish all patents in 1900. We must now imagine that the Wright brothers contribute 10n to the development, instead of n, in the total absence of all patent laws, which was a primary motivation for their research. How can we explain that they invest resources when we know that a primary actual reason for this huge investment of resources, was the patent regime? Why didn't the ancient Romans build wind tunnels? Why weren't wind tunnels built in parts of the world that did not have a strong patent regime? You ask me to imagine that for every n that was invented under the present regime, if we had abolished it, 10n would have been invented. But we have very strong historical evidence to the contrary: namely the fact that this was NOT being done. Leonardo Da Vinci was an inventor. WHy did he not build a studio that included strong mechanical investment of the kind that the patent regime directly caused the Wright brothers to invest in? If there is 10x as much invention under our alternate history without a patent regime -- then where is this investment in innovation in Florence under the Renaissance? You ask me to ASSUME that there is ten times as much innovation, but doing so causes me to have to assume something that is contrary to every historical example. So the situation you ask me to explore is extremely contrafactual. But we can examine whether the innovation is happening as you suggest - at ten times the pace. We are actually able to find areas that patent law happens not to cover -- it could cover it, but it does not. It is not patentable to discover something that exists in nature. So, you posit that WITHOUT patent law, there is TEN TIMES as much innovation. But are there ten times as many herbal inventions that are nnot patentable, as artificial inventions which are subject to patent? Here is a cure for Melaria based on this approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou In this case she literally followed a recipe that had been written down. ABSENT PATENTS, AN ANCIENT CHINESE RECIPE THAT HAD BEEN FULLY WRITTEN DOWN WAS BARELY EXPLORED. That is how little incentive there is to explore things without patents. Let me put this in terms that are more salient. Suppose that there was a book that showed how anyone can live to 120. But nobody opens that book. Whereas hundreds of thousands of researchers are spending billions of dollars on different books - which are subject to patents. This is a case where melaria was killing literally - no exaggeration - millions of people. Absent patents, so little research wsa done that literal recipes that had already been written down were not followed. So you have a chance to see precisely the effect that you claim. It simply does not work as you ask me to presuppose. Do you not like my example of herbal medicines? Pick something else that is not subject to patents -- perhaps certain parts of mathematics. Compare the innovation there with innovation in similar parts -- applied software -- that are covered. You ask me to presume that there is ten times as much innovation in the pure mathematics which is (by virtue of the patent system) not subject to patents -- but it is simply false. It is not true. You make a prediction, that there will be ten times as much innovation everywhere that by happenstance happens not to be covered by patents -- but it is simply not true. My reply to you isn't PERFECT because it's not a controlled experiment. It could be that pure math is inherently less useful than applied cryptography; it could be that herbal medicines are inherently less efficacious than chemical analogs. Still, we can turn this happenstance into a very rigorous experiment: Break patent law down into every field that it covers. There may be 200 of them. Then, randomly totally annul all patent coverage in a certain number of them, such as five of them. Your prediction is that those five fields will explode. Or is 5 not enough? Imagine a random 100 are lifted from patent coverage, all patent protection disappears in a randomly chosen 100 fields whereas patent coverage continues in the remaining 100. You ask me to suppose that innovation will blossom and explode in the 100 that are no longer covered by patents. Through what mechanism? We do, in fact, run this experiment: From time to time the courts ADD something to PATENT PROTECTION simply to help promote innovation in that field. (This is the reason some people's genes may be patented. I consider that outrageous - I disagree with it - but the reasoning is that this will enable companies to spend money investigating genes. This is correct). When the courts take something non-patentable, such as people's actual genes, and allow patents of innovative research therein, what ACTUALLY happens is that innovation explodes in that sector. This is an actual effect that we see. It is the exact literal opposite effect from what you predict. So your predictions in this thought experiment have been falsified. History runs counter to what you predict starting in 1900 without a patent regime. We nearly have controlled experiments. If we did have controlled experiments they would further refute your claims. So you are simply wrong in every way, including when you asked me to assume that you right. And you still have not done my task, which is to invent some lie that explains why the patent regime is what stifled Roman innovation, prevvented their having an industrial revolution and, optionally, led to their downfall. I think by thinking through very rigorously, the very thought experiment you suggested (which is rigorous enough) you will find that in this case I am correct and you had been incorrect. I hope you are now on my side and also correct. thanks for the discussion.

logicallee 9y ago

>Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines yep, it's entirely possible that overly broad patents would have completely killed all innovation in the 20th century and we would not have electricity, internal combustion, patent medicines, flight, and in fact we would probably be flinging feces at each other. We would have probably forgotten how to read and write, under too broad of a patent regime. (Sorry I'm dripping with sarcasm again, the statement I quoted you making is just so ridiculously wrong.) By the way as wrong as you are, don't you think you should expand on your wrongness by at least trying to apply a wrong analysis of patent law to Roman times? Can't you at least speculate that somehow your wrong ideas are what kept the Romans from having an industrial revolution of their own? I know they didn't have a patent law but for the sake of the narrative can't you lie and say they had very broad patents which completely stifled innovation? It would help your comment hang together better than your historical example from societies that did not have the benefit of patent law. Just make the argument, somehow, that patents are what led firstly to the Roman civilization never developing internal combustion, electricity, modern metallurgy, or a host of modern inventions, and, secondly, maybe you could somehow expand the lie to show that the patent regime is what caused their downfall as a civilization. I know you could work it in there. you're already so wrong, it really is within your reach. just try your best. Thank you for standing up for innovation. I think we can all agree that lying and being wrong about truth and history is a small price to pay in exchange for preventing our grandchildren from growing up in an illiterate world without electricity and where they have to eck out a living scrawling modern art out of feces. clearly this is where broad patents lead, and the fact that history has never shown this to be the case is just a coincidence. Is the fact that something has never happened a good reason to believe that it doesn't happen inevitably, and all the time? No, it just means that as a society we've been incredibly lucky. Like astronomically. It's all been one lottery win after another after another - the whole industrial revolution and all of the twentieth century. It can't go on forever. We need to take a stand against (broad) patents. They lead to the exact opposite of what they have been shown to lead to in every society that has ever had them. What happens is NOT descriptive of what happens. Only a fool would study history to see how things happen. Much better would be to write some lies about patent law in Roman times. I look forward to reading it. (sorry about my tone - you're just so wrong, I can't reply in any other way.)

Sinergy2 9y ago
Suppose that patents had prevented 90% of useful inventions and overall progress over the last century. That is, imagine that for every 10 inventions you can list from the 1900s, 9 had been prevented. Do you agree that would have been a negative outcome? Now ask yourself whether that outcome would have changed your conclusion today. If not--that is, if you can imagine finding enough material in the remaining 10% (without knowing about the missing 90%) to point out as proof that patents didn't limit innovation--then try extrapolating that out to imagine the difference between the dribble of inventions we saw in the 20th century vs. what could have been. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
- logicallee 9y ago
  Firstly, I take your present comment very seriously because you write with great rigor. You direct me to run a thought experiment ("Suppose that patents had prevented 90% of useful inventions"). This is good. Presently, we will both be right: because either you are wrong and will change your mind or I am wrong and I will change [edit:my] mind. We have simply calculated different results and because you are willing to direct thought experiments, we will soon see which result is correct. However, since you directed me to run a thought experiment I must point out that you did not complete the task I just assigned you. I told you to make up a lie that a broad and powerful patent regime is the reason that 1) the ancient Romans did not have an industrial revolution and 2) led to their downfall. I directed you to blame a broad patent system on this, however you did not do so. Let me set this aside and look at the task you assigned. You directed me to imagine that in the past century 90% of useful inventions and overall progress were prevented by patents. That is, you directed me to run a thought experiment where the patent system does not exist from the twentieth century, and you directed me to interpret the conclusion that under such a scenario as of 2017 there are 10n useful inventions, or the overall level of innovation or utility is 10n, where the current level is only n. Okay, let me write this state of affairs descriptively: -> From the Enlightenment onward, science and rational study took a front row in society. The Monarchy instituted a system of patents meant in part to support inventors and inventions. Progress accelerated until 1900. This saw the creation of the steam engine, industrial combustion, electricity, and many important inventions. Before we changed history to abolish all patents, the Wright brothers around this time were bicycle mechanics who relied on patents to justify their investment in mechanics. Prior to rewriting history, here is a description of the Wright brothers (how things actually happened): "The brothers' fundamental breakthrough was their invention of three-axis control, which enabled the pilot to steer the aircraft effectively and to maintain its equilibrium.[4][5][6][7] This method became and remains standard on fixed-wing aircraft of all kinds.[8][9] From the beginning of their aeronautical work, the Wright brothers focused on developing a reliable method of pilot control as the key to solving 'the flying problem'. This approach differed significantly from other experimenters of the time who put more emphasis on developing powerful engines.[10] Using a small homebuilt wind tunnel, the Wrights also collected more accurate data than any before, enabling them to design and build wings and propellers that were more efficient than any before.[11][12] Their first U.S. patent, 821,393, did not claim invention of a flying machine, but rather, the invention of a system of aerodynamic control that manipulated a flying machine's surfaces" As you can see, they invested huge amounts of time and equipment into a literal wind tunnel. Why? Because they were attempting to bring patentable inventions to a broad audience. You ask me to imagine that this is n. But now we abolish all patents in 1900. We must now imagine that the Wright brothers contribute 10n to the development, instead of n, in the total absence of all patent laws, which was a primary motivation for their research. How can we explain that they invest resources when we know that a primary actual reason for this huge investment of resources, was the patent regime? Why didn't the ancient Romans build wind tunnels? Why weren't wind tunnels built in parts of the world that did not have a strong patent regime? You ask me to imagine that for every n that was invented under the present regime, if we had abolished it, 10n would have been invented. But we have very strong historical evidence to the contrary: namely the fact that this was NOT being done. Leonardo Da Vinci was an inventor. WHy did he not build a studio that included strong mechanical investment of the kind that the patent regime directly caused the Wright brothers to invest in? If there is 10x as much invention under our alternate history without a patent regime -- then where is this investment in innovation in Florence under the Renaissance? You ask me to ASSUME that there is ten times as much innovation, but doing so causes me to have to assume something that is contrary to every historical example. So the situation you ask me to explore is extremely contrafactual. But we can examine whether the innovation is happening as you suggest - at ten times the pace. We are actually able to find areas that patent law happens not to cover -- it could cover it, but it does not. It is not patentable to discover something that exists in nature. So, you posit that WITHOUT patent law, there is TEN TIMES as much innovation. But are there ten times as many herbal inventions that are nnot patentable, as artificial inventions which are subject to patent? Here is a cure for Melaria based on this approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_Youyou In this case she literally followed a recipe that had been written down. ABSENT PATENTS, AN ANCIENT CHINESE RECIPE THAT HAD BEEN FULLY WRITTEN DOWN WAS BARELY EXPLORED. That is how little incentive there is to explore things without patents. Let me put this in terms that are more salient. Suppose that there was a book that showed how anyone can live to 120. But nobody opens that book. Whereas hundreds of thousands of researchers are spending billions of dollars on different books - which are subject to patents. This is a case where melaria was killing literally - no exaggeration - millions of people. Absent patents, so little research wsa done that literal recipes that had already been written down were not followed. So you have a chance to see precisely the effect that you claim. It simply does not work as you ask me to presuppose. Do you not like my example of herbal medicines? Pick something else that is not subject to patents -- perhaps certain parts of mathematics. Compare the innovation there with innovation in similar parts -- applied software -- that are covered. You ask me to presume that there is ten times as much innovation in the pure mathematics which is (by virtue of the patent system) not subject to patents -- but it is simply false. It is not true. You make a prediction, that there will be ten times as much innovation everywhere that by happenstance happens not to be covered by patents -- but it is simply not true. My reply to you isn't PERFECT because it's not a controlled experiment. It could be that pure math is inherently less useful than applied cryptography; it could be that herbal medicines are inherently less efficacious than chemical analogs. Still, we can turn this happenstance into a very rigorous experiment: Break patent law down into every field that it covers. There may be 200 of them. Then, randomly totally annul all patent coverage in a certain number of them, such as five of them. Your prediction is that those five fields will explode. Or is 5 not enough? Imagine a random 100 are lifted from patent coverage, all patent protection disappears in a randomly chosen 100 fields whereas patent coverage continues in the remaining 100. You ask me to suppose that innovation will blossom and explode in the 100 that are no longer covered by patents. Through what mechanism? We do, in fact, run this experiment: From time to time the courts ADD something to PATENT PROTECTION simply to help promote innovation in that field. (This is the reason some people's genes may be patented. I consider that outrageous - I disagree with it - but the reasoning is that this will enable companies to spend money investigating genes. This is correct). When the courts take something non-patentable, such as people's actual genes, and allow patents of innovative research therein, what ACTUALLY happens is that innovation explodes in that sector. This is an actual effect that we see. It is the exact literal opposite effect from what you predict. So your predictions in this thought experiment have been falsified. History runs counter to what you predict starting in 1900 without a patent regime. We nearly have controlled experiments. If we did have controlled experiments they would further refute your claims. So you are simply wrong in every way, including when you asked me to assume that you right. And you still have not done my task, which is to invent some lie that explains why the patent regime is what stifled Roman innovation, prevvented their having an industrial revolution and, optionally, led to their downfall. I think by thinking through very rigorously, the very thought experiment you suggested (which is rigorous enough) you will find that in this case I am correct and you had been incorrect. I hope you are now on my side and also correct. thanks for the discussion.