6 ms·

Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who

by lotusleaf1987 16y ago

Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who innovate, but so often they are abused by the likes of Nathan Myhrvold and Intellectual Ventures. Without patents, everything would essentially be a meritocracy. Either way, this is another example of how badly the patent system needs reform of some kind. Here is an article that makes a better argument than I have the time or capacity for: http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-without-intellectual-property.aspx http://mises.org/Community/wikis/economics/a-world-without-i...

thwarted 16y ago
I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who innovate... It would be easier to see this argument if that is what actually occurred. I mean, I understand that argument, but it's been a bogus argument for a long time because it's not practiced and the people who say we need patents for that reason are not looking to actually execute on that.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  That's why the next word is "but".
  - thwarted 16y ago
    I know. I was attempting to add more specifics to why I think that argument is questionable, not to challenge your observations.
jemfinch 16y ago
> Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. There are several things wrong with your proposition. First, the food and beverage industries get by without patents because they leverage trade secrets, which is the exact sort of privatized knowledge that patents have long sought to prevent. Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his name that matters. The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge. What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less? The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.
- ajscherer 16y ago
  I can think of a ton of ways to make money with a time machine that don't involve selling it.
  - shasta 16y ago
    Sure, you go back and file a bunch of patents
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - mechanical_fish 16y ago
      http://www.cheapass.com/products/boardgames/cag034.html http://www.cheapass.com/products/boardgames/cag034.html
- jerf 16y ago
  "Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his name that matters." How do you know this is cause and not effect? The adaptation of the system to not having government monopolies may have been to go to a name-based reputation system. It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does. " What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?" Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any evidence that it actually works that way? I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product where they get a lot of protection that works; I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on. Goals aren't results. You've stated the goals of the system, but really, who cares what the goals are? What matters are the effects. The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place, especially now that turnaround time is measured in years. In fact the horrible outcome you describe in a world without patents seems rather similar to what actually happens in this one.... the little guys won't be able to afford the lawyers, and everybody in the system knows it.
davidw 16y ago
> Why don't we just abolish patents? "Intellectual property" is one way of increasing the provisioning of "public goods": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Which, in theory, are under-provisioned in a system where they can be easily copied once someone has invested the effort to produce them, leaving the creator under-compensated for their time and effort. IP is inherently a compromise between producers and consumers. In the case of software patents, the balance has tipped too far towards the "producers", I think. However, in the case of something like innovative pharmaceuticals, maybe the compromise isn't that bad right now. It takes years of work, and millions of dollars to bring a drug to market, and once it's on the market, you have to say exactly what's in it! No trade secrets, no obfuscated binaries, but the exact substance, which makes it relatively easy to go copy. You could make a case that there would be less invested in finding new drugs if they could immediately be copied the moment they were released. In any case, there are no absolutes - it's a compromise, and one that needs to be carefully considered for different fields of endeavor, rather than apply blanket solutions like "eliminate patents".
potatolicious 16y ago
Take off the blinders for a second and keep in mind that your view of patent abuses is very much limited to that of the software realm. Patents remain relevant and valuable in fields beyond software, where product development and basic R&D costs a hell of a lot more than it does in our little field. I was trained as a mechanical engineer, and have some experience in that field - and I can say with great certainty that bringing even a simple mechanical contraption (or electrical, for that matter) to market is a lot more expensive than what we do. In fact, for the vast majority of software, the only substantial cost is salaries, and maaaaybe hosting. We don't deal with regulatory fees, testing so extensive as to cost tens of millions of dollars (if not more), and prototyping costs more substantial than a bunch of bits on a platter.
- binspace 16y ago
  > Patents remain relevant and valuable in fields beyond software, where product development and basic R&D costs a hell of a lot more than it does in our little field. There's evidence that innovation increases without patents. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100421/1451179133.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100421/1451179133.shtml http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_says_patents_hinder_innovation.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_says_patents_hind... http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/ http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-... Patents are rent seeking agreements and have long since been outdated, if they ever made sense. Basically, I think of patents in the same light as special interest groups. They promote the welfare of the few at the expense of the rest.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Innovators will innovate as much as artists will paint. Innovation won't stop because of a lack of patents, you will just have to shift to increased secrecy during the development phase which will lead to the competition having to play catch-up. I can see a world without patents move faster, not slower in terms of innovation. edit: @binspace, that's pretty close :)
  - rwmj 16y ago
josephcooney 16y ago
A friend of mine is a patent lawyer. From what he told me the food industry is rife with patents.
eli 16y ago
The fashion industry disagrees that they are getting along fine without them http://www.counterfeitchic.com/ http://www.counterfeitchic.com/
brc 16y ago
No patents, no PARC. No PARC, well, would we have come up with the GUI, the laser printer, ethernet? Maybe so, but it's hard to argue against the merits of PARC, which existed solely because of the photocopying patent held by Xerox.

thwarted 16y ago

I can see the argument to justify patents--rewarding people who innovate... It would be easier to see this argument if that is what actually occurred. I mean, I understand that argument, but it's been a bogus argument for a long time because it's not practiced and the people who say we need patents for that reason are not looking to actually execute on that.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
That's why the next word is "but".
- thwarted 16y ago
  I know. I was attempting to add more specifics to why I think that argument is questionable, not to challenge your observations.

jemfinch 16y ago

> Why don't we just abolish patents? The fashion and food industries seem to get by without them. There are several things wrong with your proposition. First, the food and beverage industries get by without patents because they leverage trade secrets, which is the exact sort of privatized knowledge that patents have long sought to prevent. Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his name that matters. The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge. What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less? The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.

ajscherer 16y ago
I can think of a ton of ways to make money with a time machine that don't involve selling it.
- shasta 16y ago
  Sure, you go back and file a bunch of patents
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - mechanical_fish 16y ago
    http://www.cheapass.com/products/boardgames/cag034.html http://www.cheapass.com/products/boardgames/cag034.html
jerf 16y ago
"Second, fashion survives without patents because names matter. People will buy Louis Vuitton whether it's good or not, simply because it has his name on it. Louis Vuitton has no need for patents because it's not the bag design, but his name that matters." How do you know this is cause and not effect? The adaptation of the system to not having government monopolies may have been to go to a name-based reputation system. It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does. " What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?" Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any evidence that it actually works that way? I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product where they get a lot of protection that works; I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on. Goals aren't results. You've stated the goals of the system, but really, who cares what the goals are? What matters are the effects. The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place, especially now that turnaround time is measured in years. In fact the horrible outcome you describe in a world without patents seems rather similar to what actually happens in this one.... the little guys won't be able to afford the lawyers, and everybody in the system knows it.

davidw 16y ago

> Why don't we just abolish patents? "Intellectual property" is one way of increasing the provisioning of "public goods": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Which, in theory, are under-provisioned in a system where they can be easily copied once someone has invested the effort to produce them, leaving the creator under-compensated for their time and effort. IP is inherently a compromise between producers and consumers. In the case of software patents, the balance has tipped too far towards the "producers", I think. However, in the case of something like innovative pharmaceuticals, maybe the compromise isn't that bad right now. It takes years of work, and millions of dollars to bring a drug to market, and once it's on the market, you have to say exactly what's in it! No trade secrets, no obfuscated binaries, but the exact substance, which makes it relatively easy to go copy. You could make a case that there would be less invested in finding new drugs if they could immediately be copied the moment they were released. In any case, there are no absolutes - it's a compromise, and one that needs to be carefully considered for different fields of endeavor, rather than apply blanket solutions like "eliminate patents".

potatolicious 16y ago

Take off the blinders for a second and keep in mind that your view of patent abuses is very much limited to that of the software realm. Patents remain relevant and valuable in fields beyond software, where product development and basic R&D costs a hell of a lot more than it does in our little field. I was trained as a mechanical engineer, and have some experience in that field - and I can say with great certainty that bringing even a simple mechanical contraption (or electrical, for that matter) to market is a lot more expensive than what we do. In fact, for the vast majority of software, the only substantial cost is salaries, and maaaaybe hosting. We don't deal with regulatory fees, testing so extensive as to cost tens of millions of dollars (if not more), and prototyping costs more substantial than a bunch of bits on a platter.

binspace 16y ago
> Patents remain relevant and valuable in fields beyond software, where product development and basic R&D costs a hell of a lot more than it does in our little field. There's evidence that innovation increases without patents. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100421/1451179133.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100421/1451179133.shtml http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_says_patents_hinder_innovation.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/study_says_patents_hind... http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/ http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-... Patents are rent seeking agreements and have long since been outdated, if they ever made sense. Basically, I think of patents in the same light as special interest groups. They promote the welfare of the few at the expense of the rest.
jacquesm 16y ago
Innovators will innovate as much as artists will paint. Innovation won't stop because of a lack of patents, you will just have to shift to increased secrecy during the development phase which will lead to the competition having to play catch-up. I can see a world without patents move faster, not slower in terms of innovation. edit: @binspace, that's pretty close :)
- rwmj 16y ago

josephcooney 16y ago

A friend of mine is a patent lawyer. From what he told me the food industry is rife with patents.

eli 16y ago

The fashion industry disagrees that they are getting along fine without them http://www.counterfeitchic.com/ http://www.counterfeitchic.com/

brc 16y ago

No patents, no PARC. No PARC, well, would we have come up with the GUI, the laser printer, ethernet? Maybe so, but it's hard to argue against the merits of PARC, which existed solely because of the photocopying patent held by Xerox.