5 ms·

You haven't given any evidence that it arose because of that system or in spite of it. There are plenty of examples going back to Singer sewing machines [1] and

by derf_ 8y ago

You haven't given any evidence that it arose because of that system or in spite of it. There are plenty of examples going back to Singer sewing machines [1] and the Wright Brothers [2] that demonstrate that the surest way to delay the widespread deployment of any transformative technology by many years is to patent it. [1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

rayiner 8y ago
You can also find dozens of examples where investors pour billions of dollars into developing technology because they know they can patent it and won’t immediately be undercut by free riders. I’m typing this on a machine that has CPU technology licensed from ARM, GPU technology licensed from Imagination Technologies, and cellular technology licensed from dozens of companies. Those companies did, in fact, invest in all of those technologies in reliance on patent protection for the resulting developments. One can imagine alternative ways to monetize that R&D. Unfortunately, the main alternative historically was proprietary products and vertical integration. But one can imagine there is something better.
- derf_ 8y ago
  The claim wasn't that the system is "unworkable" in the sense that it's causing world hunger or something, but that the system doesn't "work" in the sense that, in aggregate, it's not "promoting progress of the useful arts." People will certainly use patent protection where it is available to them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have invested in those technologies solely on the basis of first mover advantage [0], and the lack of any observed effect of strengthening the patent system and increasing the scope of what is patentable on R&D spending tends to back that up. [0] ARM would need a different business model, but it's unclear to me that other business models (i.e., Intel's) wouldn't have been just as successful, and wouldn't come with the social deadweight loss of patent trolls highlighted in the article.
  - dahauns 8y ago
    >ARM would need a different business model Why? there's actually legislation specifically tailored to these kinds of problem, and it seems to work well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Chip_Protection_Act_of_1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Chip_Protection_... (And it's equivalents in other parts of the world)
pnw_hazor 8y ago
Not everyone agrees about the aviation patents: "We show that despite the existence of basic aircraft patents, aircraft manufacturers faced no patent barriers in the market dominated by government demand. We show that the notion of the aircraft patent hold-up is a myth created by government officials and used to persuade the Congress to authorize eminent domain condemnation of basic aircraft patent" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673

by derf_ 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

You can also find dozens of examples where investors pour billions of dollars into developing technology because they know they can patent it and won’t immediately be undercut by free riders. I’m typing this on a machine that has CPU technology licensed from ARM, GPU technology licensed from Imagination Technologies, and cellular technology licensed from dozens of companies. Those companies did, in fact, invest in all of those technologies in reliance on patent protection for the resulting developments. One can imagine alternative ways to monetize that R&D. Unfortunately, the main alternative historically was proprietary products and vertical integration. But one can imagine there is something better.

derf_ 8y ago
The claim wasn't that the system is "unworkable" in the sense that it's causing world hunger or something, but that the system doesn't "work" in the sense that, in aggregate, it's not "promoting progress of the useful arts." People will certainly use patent protection where it is available to them, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have invested in those technologies solely on the basis of first mover advantage [0], and the lack of any observed effect of strengthening the patent system and increasing the scope of what is patentable on R&D spending tends to back that up. [0] ARM would need a different business model, but it's unclear to me that other business models (i.e., Intel's) wouldn't have been just as successful, and wouldn't come with the social deadweight loss of patent trolls highlighted in the article.
- dahauns 8y ago
  >ARM would need a different business model Why? there's actually legislation specifically tailored to these kinds of problem, and it seems to work well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Chip_Protection_Act_of_1984 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_Chip_Protection_... (And it's equivalents in other parts of the world)

pnw_hazor 8y ago

Not everyone agrees about the aviation patents: "We show that despite the existence of basic aircraft patents, aircraft manufacturers faced no patent barriers in the market dominated by government demand. We show that the notion of the aircraft patent hold-up is a myth created by government officials and used to persuade the Congress to authorize eminent domain condemnation of basic aircraft patent" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673