4 ms·

So what happened? If done right -- and it could take 2 years or more -- we'll end up with a patent system that produces fewer patents (fewer people will bother

by kosei 9y ago

So what happened? If done right -- and it could take 2 years or more -- we'll end up with a patent system that produces fewer patents (fewer people will bother to apply for 3 or 5 year patents, and fewer patents means less work for the overworked Patent and Trademark Office), fewer bad patents (because of the pre-issuance comment period), and even the good patents won't last longer than is necessary to give the innovator a reasonable return (at Internet speed, you don't need 17 years).

ABCLAW 9y ago
There is very little in the way of empirical research on the effectiveness of patents and specific patent policy elements, so regulators are fairly hamstrung; they know the area is important but mis-formed, but they can't really get some form of consensus as to which elements are broken and which aren't. In Canada, for instance, federal government's patent policy research apparatus is essentially two people. Two. Additionally, the epistemic academic work required to provide a proper critique of the industry is not well funded by public or private sources. On the private side, most interested parties are incentivized to be patent maximalists, while on the public side, applicants are basically pitching an argument to the legal academy that indicates that their central dogmas are so tremendously wrong so as to be unjust. Additionally, the issues caused by a lack of patent reform are not acutely felt by the majority of individuals or industries, which means the benefit is concentrated while the pain is distributed. Representation at industry forums, accordingly, is slanted. In the pharmaceutical space, for instance, WIPO had no issue with crushing access to medicine until there was a global outcry, and patted itself on the back when they introduced access provisions, despite themselves admitting the provisions were basically unused after four years following their introduction because the local industries and talent that they presumed were already dead and gone. TL;DR: No inertia.

by kosei 9y ago

ABCLAW 9y ago

There is very little in the way of empirical research on the effectiveness of patents and specific patent policy elements, so regulators are fairly hamstrung; they know the area is important but mis-formed, but they can't really get some form of consensus as to which elements are broken and which aren't. In Canada, for instance, federal government's patent policy research apparatus is essentially two people. Two. Additionally, the epistemic academic work required to provide a proper critique of the industry is not well funded by public or private sources. On the private side, most interested parties are incentivized to be patent maximalists, while on the public side, applicants are basically pitching an argument to the legal academy that indicates that their central dogmas are so tremendously wrong so as to be unjust. Additionally, the issues caused by a lack of patent reform are not acutely felt by the majority of individuals or industries, which means the benefit is concentrated while the pain is distributed. Representation at industry forums, accordingly, is slanted. In the pharmaceutical space, for instance, WIPO had no issue with crushing access to medicine until there was a global outcry, and patted itself on the back when they introduced access provisions, despite themselves admitting the provisions were basically unused after four years following their introduction because the local industries and talent that they presumed were already dead and gone. TL;DR: No inertia.