5 ms·

I’m becoming more of the opinion that all intellectual property law is immoral on the grounds that it creates artificial barriers to prosperity for individuals

I’m becoming more of the opinion that all intellectual property law is immoral on the grounds that it creates artificial barriers to prosperity for individuals who don’t receive the benefits of the patents. I work hard on personal projects (robots) that I think would be useful to others and I share them all CC0 or BSD licensed. I think it would be useful for economists to consider the way patents exacerbate inequality. That said, my employer has filed a patent for some work I did for them, and it’s a tough issue for me. In this case, I don’t think the innovation is so world changing that I need to fight for it to be open, nor do I think they would honor my desire to leave it unpatented as I’m not really in a position to ask for that. But it’s an issue I feel uncomfortable with, and I kind of dream of moving to a different place where my employer doesn’t try to patent my work. It is tough when they offer you a few thousand for these ideas you come up with. That money could help me build a family, but in closing off these ideas I’m making it harder for everyone else to prosper. FWIW, if anyone says “patents encourage innovation” I would ask you for citations. I understand this is the story we’re told, but it’s typically presented with simple anecdotal evidence and hunches. I’ve never seen a thorough study of the issue.

pritchardgelman 8y ago
>intellectual property law is immoral on the grounds that it creates artificial barriers to prosperity for individuals who don’t receive the benefits of the patents It is also a wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy: the justice system protecting IP capital is financed by taxpayers, the hard majority of which hold no patents.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Consider that the majority of federal tax revenues are generated by top income earners. It’s more of a wealth transfer between different groups of the wealthy. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-loo...
  - quadrangle 8y ago
    Patents take money from the poor by denying them the prosperity at low-cost that would happen if there were no patents. Patents are government-enforced monopolies. They enable all of what anyone would expect with monopolies, namely high prices for consumers.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      Reasonably time limited patents are a necessary component of incentivizing innovation, without which consumers would not realize new goods and services based off of those innovations.
      - dTal 8y ago
        There was plenty of innovation before patents. The purpose of patents was never to incentivize innovation. The purpose was to incentivize disclosure, to allow the progress of society by revealing trade secrets (in exchange for which they would be protected from competitors for a time). If you've ever tried to read a patent, you'll know this system has failed. In almost no cases can you meaningfully replicate an invention from a patent. Quite apart from which, a huge number of things under patent protection today are public knowledge anyway, or can be considered 'obvious'.
      - setr 8y ago
        >Reasonably time limited patents are a necessary component of incentivizing innovation Ive never been satisfied with this necessity; its not like innovation would just seize without patents: innovation in processes is still incentivized, because falling behind would mean higher prices than competition, and lost market share, so you still need to r&d to at least match the competition, let alone best it. Innovation in consumer products is still incentivized, by first movers effect, though perhaps the easiest copied things are lost (ie plastic lids might be too easy to copy design updates). Innovation in software obviously wont stop, and shenzhen succeeds in electronics with lax (absent?) patent/copyright law. The primary innovation patents might be necessary for is a small company taking on a larger one, and needing to protect its design while it gets itself going.... but in practice, it proposed hinders innovation there more than it helps. Patents, I think, are about essentially open-sourcing the design of things, and the incentive to do so is a temporary, gov-enforced monopoly. If theres any idea about innovation, its in the long-term, as 5,10,20 years from now, we can read up on these ideas and build on top of them, instead of seeing them lost in time with the company's demise.
- pjc50 8y ago
  I do think the time is long overdue for IPR "property tax" as an anti-squatting measure and a defence against increasingly long copyright terms. Disney making billions off Mickey Mouse? They can pay a tiny fraction of that and they can have their extension. Novel by obscure dead author? Don't extend the copyright unless the estate wants to pay for it. Abandoned and nobody to pay the tax? Enters the public domain. All those defensive spurious patents? They impose a search cost on every single other innovator. There should be a carrying cost for the defensive patent wall.
  - dannyw 8y ago
    I think that's a great idea. The value of an IP could be self-assessed, with the caveat that any party has an option to purchase the IP for e.g. 125% of the self-assessed value. The tax on this value could scale from 1% for year 10 onwards, increasing by 0.25% per year. Year 50 of your copyright? Be prepared to pay 11% APR rent on its value.
- skykooler 8y ago
  Especially as filing a patent costs several hundred dollars. If you have an idea but not much money, you can't afford to patent it (or might have to make the choice between buying a patent or marketing your invention).
citilife 8y ago
> It is tough when they offer you a few thousand for these ideas you come up with. That money could help me build a family, but in closing off these ideas I’m making it harder for everyone else to prosper. I don't disagree. I look at it as a way for me to profit, I have to be pragmatic, unfortunately. I do donate 25% of each bonus to the EFF and personally I look at it another way... This problem is going to get worse before it gets better. If I don't do this someone else will. The powers that be want this, and the lower levels like myself live on a bounty. It'll eventually fix itself, but until then I can net enough money to pay off my student loans, my cars, my house.

pritchardgelman 8y ago

>intellectual property law is immoral on the grounds that it creates artificial barriers to prosperity for individuals who don’t receive the benefits of the patents It is also a wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy: the justice system protecting IP capital is financed by taxpayers, the hard majority of which hold no patents.

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Consider that the majority of federal tax revenues are generated by top income earners. It’s more of a wealth transfer between different groups of the wealthy. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-loo...
- quadrangle 8y ago
  Patents take money from the poor by denying them the prosperity at low-cost that would happen if there were no patents. Patents are government-enforced monopolies. They enable all of what anyone would expect with monopolies, namely high prices for consumers.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Reasonably time limited patents are a necessary component of incentivizing innovation, without which consumers would not realize new goods and services based off of those innovations.
    - dTal 8y ago
      There was plenty of innovation before patents. The purpose of patents was never to incentivize innovation. The purpose was to incentivize disclosure, to allow the progress of society by revealing trade secrets (in exchange for which they would be protected from competitors for a time). If you've ever tried to read a patent, you'll know this system has failed. In almost no cases can you meaningfully replicate an invention from a patent. Quite apart from which, a huge number of things under patent protection today are public knowledge anyway, or can be considered 'obvious'.
    - setr 8y ago
      >Reasonably time limited patents are a necessary component of incentivizing innovation Ive never been satisfied with this necessity; its not like innovation would just seize without patents: innovation in processes is still incentivized, because falling behind would mean higher prices than competition, and lost market share, so you still need to r&d to at least match the competition, let alone best it. Innovation in consumer products is still incentivized, by first movers effect, though perhaps the easiest copied things are lost (ie plastic lids might be too easy to copy design updates). Innovation in software obviously wont stop, and shenzhen succeeds in electronics with lax (absent?) patent/copyright law. The primary innovation patents might be necessary for is a small company taking on a larger one, and needing to protect its design while it gets itself going.... but in practice, it proposed hinders innovation there more than it helps. Patents, I think, are about essentially open-sourcing the design of things, and the incentive to do so is a temporary, gov-enforced monopoly. If theres any idea about innovation, its in the long-term, as 5,10,20 years from now, we can read up on these ideas and build on top of them, instead of seeing them lost in time with the company's demise.
pjc50 8y ago
I do think the time is long overdue for IPR "property tax" as an anti-squatting measure and a defence against increasingly long copyright terms. Disney making billions off Mickey Mouse? They can pay a tiny fraction of that and they can have their extension. Novel by obscure dead author? Don't extend the copyright unless the estate wants to pay for it. Abandoned and nobody to pay the tax? Enters the public domain. All those defensive spurious patents? They impose a search cost on every single other innovator. There should be a carrying cost for the defensive patent wall.
- dannyw 8y ago
  I think that's a great idea. The value of an IP could be self-assessed, with the caveat that any party has an option to purchase the IP for e.g. 125% of the self-assessed value. The tax on this value could scale from 1% for year 10 onwards, increasing by 0.25% per year. Year 50 of your copyright? Be prepared to pay 11% APR rent on its value.
skykooler 8y ago
Especially as filing a patent costs several hundred dollars. If you have an idea but not much money, you can't afford to patent it (or might have to make the choice between buying a patent or marketing your invention).

citilife 8y ago

> It is tough when they offer you a few thousand for these ideas you come up with. That money could help me build a family, but in closing off these ideas I’m making it harder for everyone else to prosper. I don't disagree. I look at it as a way for me to profit, I have to be pragmatic, unfortunately. I do donate 25% of each bonus to the EFF and personally I look at it another way... This problem is going to get worse before it gets better. If I don't do this someone else will. The powers that be want this, and the lower levels like myself live on a bounty. It'll eventually fix itself, but until then I can net enough money to pay off my student loans, my cars, my house.