10 ms·

The authors summarize as: > ... there is no empirical evidence that [patents] serve to increase innovation and productivity ... This seems to be a fundamental

The authors summarize as: > ... there is no empirical evidence that [patents] serve to increase innovation and productivity ... This seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding as to what purpose patents serve. The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public -- inventions which might previously have been kept secret are instead put into the light where others may use them. The cost to the public of patents are that such use must be deferred out of respect for the temporary monopoly granted to the patent holder. That is, patents don't increase innovation or productivity -- that is by design. They are just a means of harnessing the innovation and productivity of individuals and encouraging them to make their work public instead of keeping it a secret. So it seems to me that the paper is arguing a strawman rather than making a useful point.

beefield 8y ago
> The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public -- inventions which might previously have been kept secret are instead put into the light where others may use them Can you come up with siginificant patented innovations that are not easy to reverse-engineer? I have thought that the raison d'etre of patents is to foster innovation.
- jordigh 8y ago
  I always mention the Michael Jackson smooth criminal patent. Is it easy to reverse-engineer? I don't know, it seems obvious once you see what it is, but it seems awfully clever if you don't know about it. A lot of people seem to believe that it would involve electromagnets, but the actual invention is more low-tech.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Maybe it was hard back in the days but nowadays good luck trying to keep it secret.
  - beefield 8y ago
    And how much our world would be a worse place if that innovation 1. Was kept secret 2. Had not been made in the first place? (I had the key word "significant" on purpose)
rbultje 8y ago
> The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public [..] > The cost to the public of patents are that such use must be deferred But who does this benefit? The author points out that it benefits big/old ("stagnant") corporations rather than innovators. And that still holds, no? Here's a thought experiment: if you're a small innovator and you invent something new (let's be evil: a software algorithm), what benefit does disclosure bring you? It's better to keep it secret, because big/old ("stagnant") companies will find legal loopholes in your patent application to work around it. Or, they will run it in the cloud and not tell you at all that they're running your exact algorithm. The innovator would never know. Big/old ("stagnant") companies, on the other hand, have enough legal manpower to sue you out of existence regardless of whether their patent is valid or not. It's not the patent, it's the legal process that will bankrupt the small innovator. Can patents be molded to protect the small innovator? Because isn't that the intent? Regardless of whether that protection results in monopoly, disclosure or both.
- ChrisLomont 8y ago
  >Can patents be molded to protect the small innovator? There's plenty of cases of a small or lone inventor making big companies pay for infringing a patent. I think patents are about the only protection for a small innovator to get enough leverage to enter a market. As a small innovator myself, at probably every pitch I've ever made to investors, I've been asked immediately if I have patents. When I've looked at Chinese manufacturing for products, the first thing they ask is about patents (un-patented means they can copy and sell in a lot of markets, patented makes it harder for them to sell in markets where I have a patent). There's also plenty of people that are skilled at invention, that don't work for a big mega-corp, and they make their living by being able to stop big corporations from simply stealing their product ideas and crushing them via bigger and better distribution networks. Patenting a key aspect of a new item gets small players a seat at the negotiating table where a big player has to buy the product. Without patents this would rarely happen.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cwmma 8y ago
> The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public They cover that in the paper. More generally 'productivity' is being used slightly more abstractly here more in terms of general welfare, e.g. do patents serve to increase the productivity of the economy overall.
learc83 8y ago
“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” >That is, patents don't increase innovation or productivity -- that is by design. Yes one part is to prevent trade secrets, but the idea is that by making trade secrets public, other people will have the ability to improve on the idea and make innovations that wouldn't have otherwise been possible had the knowledge been kept secret--not just that society gets to use that one invention. The other purpose has nothing to do with trade secrets. There are many inventions that wouldn't be possible to protect with trade secrets. Patents are designed to make this kind of invention profitable to create--encouraging people to invent them. Btw I'm not arguing that patents necessarily fulfill their purpose.

beefield 8y ago

> The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public -- inventions which might previously have been kept secret are instead put into the light where others may use them Can you come up with siginificant patented innovations that are not easy to reverse-engineer? I have thought that the raison d'etre of patents is to foster innovation.

jordigh 8y ago
I always mention the Michael Jackson smooth criminal patent. Is it easy to reverse-engineer? I don't know, it seems obvious once you see what it is, but it seems awfully clever if you don't know about it. A lot of people seem to believe that it would involve electromagnets, but the actual invention is more low-tech.
- matz1 8y ago
  Maybe it was hard back in the days but nowadays good luck trying to keep it secret.
- beefield 8y ago
  And how much our world would be a worse place if that innovation 1. Was kept secret 2. Had not been made in the first place? (I had the key word "significant" on purpose)

rbultje 8y ago

> The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public [..] > The cost to the public of patents are that such use must be deferred But who does this benefit? The author points out that it benefits big/old ("stagnant") corporations rather than innovators. And that still holds, no? Here's a thought experiment: if you're a small innovator and you invent something new (let's be evil: a software algorithm), what benefit does disclosure bring you? It's better to keep it secret, because big/old ("stagnant") companies will find legal loopholes in your patent application to work around it. Or, they will run it in the cloud and not tell you at all that they're running your exact algorithm. The innovator would never know. Big/old ("stagnant") companies, on the other hand, have enough legal manpower to sue you out of existence regardless of whether their patent is valid or not. It's not the patent, it's the legal process that will bankrupt the small innovator. Can patents be molded to protect the small innovator? Because isn't that the intent? Regardless of whether that protection results in monopoly, disclosure or both.

ChrisLomont 8y ago
>Can patents be molded to protect the small innovator? There's plenty of cases of a small or lone inventor making big companies pay for infringing a patent. I think patents are about the only protection for a small innovator to get enough leverage to enter a market. As a small innovator myself, at probably every pitch I've ever made to investors, I've been asked immediately if I have patents. When I've looked at Chinese manufacturing for products, the first thing they ask is about patents (un-patented means they can copy and sell in a lot of markets, patented makes it harder for them to sell in markets where I have a patent). There's also plenty of people that are skilled at invention, that don't work for a big mega-corp, and they make their living by being able to stop big corporations from simply stealing their product ideas and crushing them via bigger and better distribution networks. Patenting a key aspect of a new item gets small players a seat at the negotiating table where a big player has to buy the product. Without patents this would rarely happen.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cwmma 8y ago

> The public benefit of a patent is that the information is public They cover that in the paper. More generally 'productivity' is being used slightly more abstractly here more in terms of general welfare, e.g. do patents serve to increase the productivity of the economy overall.

learc83 8y ago

“To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” >That is, patents don't increase innovation or productivity -- that is by design. Yes one part is to prevent trade secrets, but the idea is that by making trade secrets public, other people will have the ability to improve on the idea and make innovations that wouldn't have otherwise been possible had the knowledge been kept secret--not just that society gets to use that one invention. The other purpose has nothing to do with trade secrets. There are many inventions that wouldn't be possible to protect with trade secrets. Patents are designed to make this kind of invention profitable to create--encouraging people to invent them. Btw I'm not arguing that patents necessarily fulfill their purpose.