5 ms·

Patent validity should not be one size fits all like it currently is. It's hard to imagine but the patent system was actually designed to encourage growth, not

Patent validity should not be one size fits all like it currently is. It's hard to imagine but the patent system was actually designed to encourage growth, not slow it. The validity period should be part of the application process and awarded based on things like time-to-market and the length of the research effort involved. Pharma is an example of a long patent period and a software patent like two finger zooming should be shorter (maybe five years).

baybal2 7y ago
> It's hard to imagine but the patent system was actually designed to encourage growth, not slow it. And that was done by people completely oblivious to how real world economics work, and reinforced in that delusion by later generations of not much smarter statesmen. It is not humanly possible to imagine how economic growth and efficiency is encouraged by intentional introduction of economic inefficiency through imposition of artificial scarcity (which is what patents are, literally a license on economic inefficiency)
- xoa 7y ago
  It actually is quite humanly possible. The fundamental issue is that while replication of information is effectively free, generation of (valuable) information most certainly is not. Which takes us right back into limited resource allocation and value decision territory. And markets are the best tool we've found so far for societies to use to perform generalized efficient resource allocation towards societal goals. It's also often quite possible to keep information secret for a significant time period, but efforts to do so (and efforts in turn to gain that information) are themselves examples of the "economic inefficiency" you complain about. However, generalized efforts to restrict information require the cooperation of society overall and costs to society in a way that real physical property does not. "Intellectual Property" is one possible way to try to answer all these points, a hack to try to couple market allocation to the information generation issue while also recognizing that it's not real property and is funded by and for the public. It offers a chance, not a certainty, to make money off an investment on information generation through convincing other parts of society to pay for it piecemeal during a limited pseudo-physical-property replication stage. In exchange, it shouldn't be secret, shouldn't cover basic facts of the world or certain other areas where additional generation incentives are unnecessary, and should have limited times taking into account the ongoing and ever increasing societal cost. I think it's very foolish to mistake implementation issues with fundamental ones and throw out the baby with the bath water unless you've got something better to fund information generation equally effective. And I have yet to hear any proposed scheme by total-anti-IP folks to take its place, merely complaints about the current implementation. I think it'd be far more productive to first direct efforts towards fixing mismatches in historical IP in each of the 3 areas above vs modern times. On the secrecy issue for example, encrypted source code escrow should be a requirement for having copyright protection for everything that isn't open or available source already, and have-your-cake-and-eat-it Trade Secret laws should be eliminated. Patent protection for mathematics (all software patents) should be completely eliminated, copyright is more then enough already for software and better aligns incentives. And new, better ways to reflect ongoing and increasing societal costs, and the divergence in areas of generation, should be added rather than mere fixed times. Ongoing yearly renewal beyond an initial short period at non-linearly increasing cost (either fixed or an increasing percentage of revenue) would be one possible approach. But all this seems far more useful than anything else I've seen. Total command and control at all levels of the economic stack hasn't proved any more effective for information generation than it has anywhere else in economics. IP has overall worked fairly effective, and it seems to me that the problems it has caused are more down to warts and rust that could be fixed.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    > The fundamental issue is that while replication of information is effectively free, generation of (valuable) information most certainly is not. This is a complete delusion. This is what about Goebbels said, "the bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe in." People are so indoctrinated in that way of thinking, that some times I have to show this though experiment: 1. Set up a machine that will "destroy" the IP value of something by copying it. 2. Make it do so a billion times, and watch if the company whose IP being "infringed" goes bankrupt. Now, will the company go bankrupt? Would they "run out" of their "IP generation resource?" Definitely not, that would be completely inconsequential to them. They nor lose nor gain anything. And then, all those guys run to make up some smart "economic theory" to explain that, often mutually contradicting, one sillier than another. My idea is: if though process coming under IP generation is an unproductive process, that does not make money, why does the society goes nuts to encourage and facilitate that? A basic understanding of economic principles tells this is just like throwing money away. See, US always brags of its informativeness. What was the last "big thing" an American company ever came with? I will say it was transistor, and it was more than 60 years ago, when no monstrous IP protection regime was in place. It was not American companies who came up with: hoverboards, e ciggaretes, selfie sticks, stick computer form factor, an untold number of innovations in construction materials (MgO board is a Chinese invention, as well as FRPP piping, modern foam concrete manufacturing machinery,) an untold number of advances in materials science which allowed for $200 laptops being made from carbon fibre (A US made analogue will cost you $2000 just for the casing) Just how many new products are coming from China in virtual anonymity and never given acknowledgement for their innovative nature are made without any consideration for getting remunerated for their "IP" Now whose system make more innovation US or China's? I clearly see, the moment IP protection began verging on extreme, US began stagnate in science and technology, and Chine went ahead.
    - xoa 7y ago
      >This is a complete delusion. Um, no. It's objective fact. Whether it's a video game or R&D on drugs or semiconductors, it does in fact require the expending of limited resources. Are you for real? This stuff doesn't pop into existence out of thin air. >This is what about Goebbels said, "the bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe in." Ah yes going the Nazi quote angle, always the sign of someone who is definitely not a crackpot. >1. Set up a machine that will "destroy" the IP value of something by copying it. >2. Make it do so a billion times, and watch if the company whose IP being "infringed" goes bankrupt. Did you, you know, actually READ anything I wrote, including the very first sentence that you yourself quoted? Because what you just described is information replication, which as I wrote in, again, that very sentence you quoted, is effectively free. It does not cover the step 0 of GENERATING that information to be copied in the first place. That's the problem part, which IP attempts to solve by hacking on synthetic limits on the unlimited part of the equation to handle allocation to the limited part. >What was the last "big thing" an American company ever came with? Basically the entire semiconductor and software industry? Most modern medicines? Much of modern genetic technology? Reusable rockets? Like, are you for real? >and it was more than 60 years ago, when no monstrous IP protection regime was in place. Uh, yeah when it comes to patents yes, IP is about the same as it was 60 years ago, beyond the Republicans continually trying to cut the budget of the PTO. That's part of the problem in fact. I keep wondering if you're being sarcastic or engaging in satire here yet you seem to be entirely serious, but it's utter nonsense stuff.
new299 7y ago
About encouraging growth or not. I'm not sure, it would be interesting to see what would happen without patents. However, I'm reasonably sure scientific startups wouldn't get VC funding as easily. Don't get me wrong, it's totally possible that this is a good thing, and it might make it easier for companies to bootstrap if they don't need to compete with VC funded startups. But it's a very different model than we have now. But...I don't think it's obvious that patents don't encourage growth. It's possible that they do. They do encourage disclosure to an extent (I've learned a lot reading patents). Without patents, you might find companies relying on trade secrets more. Do you trust the patent examiners to set the validity period? I don't particularly to be honest...

baybal2 7y ago

> It's hard to imagine but the patent system was actually designed to encourage growth, not slow it. And that was done by people completely oblivious to how real world economics work, and reinforced in that delusion by later generations of not much smarter statesmen. It is not humanly possible to imagine how economic growth and efficiency is encouraged by intentional introduction of economic inefficiency through imposition of artificial scarcity (which is what patents are, literally a license on economic inefficiency)

xoa 7y ago
It actually is quite humanly possible. The fundamental issue is that while replication of information is effectively free, generation of (valuable) information most certainly is not. Which takes us right back into limited resource allocation and value decision territory. And markets are the best tool we've found so far for societies to use to perform generalized efficient resource allocation towards societal goals. It's also often quite possible to keep information secret for a significant time period, but efforts to do so (and efforts in turn to gain that information) are themselves examples of the "economic inefficiency" you complain about. However, generalized efforts to restrict information require the cooperation of society overall and costs to society in a way that real physical property does not. "Intellectual Property" is one possible way to try to answer all these points, a hack to try to couple market allocation to the information generation issue while also recognizing that it's not real property and is funded by and for the public. It offers a chance, not a certainty, to make money off an investment on information generation through convincing other parts of society to pay for it piecemeal during a limited pseudo-physical-property replication stage. In exchange, it shouldn't be secret, shouldn't cover basic facts of the world or certain other areas where additional generation incentives are unnecessary, and should have limited times taking into account the ongoing and ever increasing societal cost. I think it's very foolish to mistake implementation issues with fundamental ones and throw out the baby with the bath water unless you've got something better to fund information generation equally effective. And I have yet to hear any proposed scheme by total-anti-IP folks to take its place, merely complaints about the current implementation. I think it'd be far more productive to first direct efforts towards fixing mismatches in historical IP in each of the 3 areas above vs modern times. On the secrecy issue for example, encrypted source code escrow should be a requirement for having copyright protection for everything that isn't open or available source already, and have-your-cake-and-eat-it Trade Secret laws should be eliminated. Patent protection for mathematics (all software patents) should be completely eliminated, copyright is more then enough already for software and better aligns incentives. And new, better ways to reflect ongoing and increasing societal costs, and the divergence in areas of generation, should be added rather than mere fixed times. Ongoing yearly renewal beyond an initial short period at non-linearly increasing cost (either fixed or an increasing percentage of revenue) would be one possible approach. But all this seems far more useful than anything else I've seen. Total command and control at all levels of the economic stack hasn't proved any more effective for information generation than it has anywhere else in economics. IP has overall worked fairly effective, and it seems to me that the problems it has caused are more down to warts and rust that could be fixed.
- baybal2 7y ago
  > The fundamental issue is that while replication of information is effectively free, generation of (valuable) information most certainly is not. This is a complete delusion. This is what about Goebbels said, "the bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe in." People are so indoctrinated in that way of thinking, that some times I have to show this though experiment: 1. Set up a machine that will "destroy" the IP value of something by copying it. 2. Make it do so a billion times, and watch if the company whose IP being "infringed" goes bankrupt. Now, will the company go bankrupt? Would they "run out" of their "IP generation resource?" Definitely not, that would be completely inconsequential to them. They nor lose nor gain anything. And then, all those guys run to make up some smart "economic theory" to explain that, often mutually contradicting, one sillier than another. My idea is: if though process coming under IP generation is an unproductive process, that does not make money, why does the society goes nuts to encourage and facilitate that? A basic understanding of economic principles tells this is just like throwing money away. See, US always brags of its informativeness. What was the last "big thing" an American company ever came with? I will say it was transistor, and it was more than 60 years ago, when no monstrous IP protection regime was in place. It was not American companies who came up with: hoverboards, e ciggaretes, selfie sticks, stick computer form factor, an untold number of innovations in construction materials (MgO board is a Chinese invention, as well as FRPP piping, modern foam concrete manufacturing machinery,) an untold number of advances in materials science which allowed for $200 laptops being made from carbon fibre (A US made analogue will cost you $2000 just for the casing) Just how many new products are coming from China in virtual anonymity and never given acknowledgement for their innovative nature are made without any consideration for getting remunerated for their "IP" Now whose system make more innovation US or China's? I clearly see, the moment IP protection began verging on extreme, US began stagnate in science and technology, and Chine went ahead.
  - xoa 7y ago
    >This is a complete delusion. Um, no. It's objective fact. Whether it's a video game or R&D on drugs or semiconductors, it does in fact require the expending of limited resources. Are you for real? This stuff doesn't pop into existence out of thin air. >This is what about Goebbels said, "the bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe in." Ah yes going the Nazi quote angle, always the sign of someone who is definitely not a crackpot. >1. Set up a machine that will "destroy" the IP value of something by copying it. >2. Make it do so a billion times, and watch if the company whose IP being "infringed" goes bankrupt. Did you, you know, actually READ anything I wrote, including the very first sentence that you yourself quoted? Because what you just described is information replication, which as I wrote in, again, that very sentence you quoted, is effectively free. It does not cover the step 0 of GENERATING that information to be copied in the first place. That's the problem part, which IP attempts to solve by hacking on synthetic limits on the unlimited part of the equation to handle allocation to the limited part. >What was the last "big thing" an American company ever came with? Basically the entire semiconductor and software industry? Most modern medicines? Much of modern genetic technology? Reusable rockets? Like, are you for real? >and it was more than 60 years ago, when no monstrous IP protection regime was in place. Uh, yeah when it comes to patents yes, IP is about the same as it was 60 years ago, beyond the Republicans continually trying to cut the budget of the PTO. That's part of the problem in fact. I keep wondering if you're being sarcastic or engaging in satire here yet you seem to be entirely serious, but it's utter nonsense stuff.

new299 7y ago

About encouraging growth or not. I'm not sure, it would be interesting to see what would happen without patents. However, I'm reasonably sure scientific startups wouldn't get VC funding as easily. Don't get me wrong, it's totally possible that this is a good thing, and it might make it easier for companies to bootstrap if they don't need to compete with VC funded startups. But it's a very different model than we have now. But...I don't think it's obvious that patents don't encourage growth. It's possible that they do. They do encourage disclosure to an extent (I've learned a lot reading patents). Without patents, you might find companies relying on trade secrets more. Do you trust the patent examiners to set the validity period? I don't particularly to be honest...