5 ms·
>The reality is that technology has flipped the entire argument for patents — that they spur innovation — completely on its head. The very nature of technology
by IBM 9y ago
>The reality is that technology has flipped the entire argument for patents — that they spur innovation — completely on its head. The very nature of technology — that costs are fixed and best maximized over huge user-bases, along with the presence of network effects — mean there are greater returns to innovation than ever before.
This is a silly argument that only really favors large incumbent tech companies of a certain kind, internet businesses. It basically eliminates anyone that doesn't derive their moat from network effects or high capital intensity or any business that focuses on a specific part of the value chain away from the final good or end user, such as ARM or Qualcomm. The world is better off because ARM's business model exists. The world is even better off with Qualcomm. There's large antitrust issues with Qualcomm that's being litigated by regulators and Apple, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to patent their technology.
- da_chicken 9y agoI would tend to agree. There's two built-in protections for hardware: patents, and the massive costs of the means of production. If there are no patents, then means of production is the only barrier to essentially all available technology. Any minor player that brings technology to market will be vaporized by the marketplace dominance of the big players. We'd be back to trade secrets for all hardware technology (bye bye open standards) It would certainly be better for technology in the short run, but the outcomes for human civilization could be catastrophic since competition is so damaged any time big players have so much control that they can undermine the free market. No, the solution isn't to eliminate patents. It's to reduce the term of patents and copyright in general to more reasonable lengths of time. 20 years is at least 5 generations in most technology fields. If we want to stimulate tech, then we should reduce a hardware patent to 7-10 years, and a software copyright to 14-25 years. We should not reward rent-seeking behavior that does not provide any value to the economy.
- tomc1985 9y agoGive both a max time limit of 10 years. 25 years for an algorithm is absurd
- mjevans 9y agoHow about patents and copyrights have an automatic 10 year 'automatic' copyright/copyright (similar to now for at least copyrights). Then, after that, an entity must actively pay an exponentially increasing rate of fees to retain the copyright. Trademarks, as a consumer protection, should just have a low, flat fee, on a fixed basis (with early renewal allowed).
- ekianjo 9y agothis increases regulations and favors the big players who have no issue footing the bills.
- ekianjo 9y ago14 years for software copyright? thats way too long especially since patents tend to be super broad these days.
- da_chicken 9y agoIt very well may be, but I would tend towards being conservative with a first attempt at correction, and the current term is 120 years. Keep in mind, too, that copyright is what backs the GPL and other free software licences. You thought Tivoization was bad? If we set the expiration date to 5 years, then the 4.0 Linux kernel would be eligible for proprietary use by 2020.
- jessaustin 9y agoUsername undercuts argument.
- swyx 9y agoIrony is the spice of life!