3 ms·

Eddison, in his lifetime made around $12m from his patents and he died around 1931. So scaling that amount (so would be around $1Bn), does appear to fall short

by Zenst 7y ago

Eddison, in his lifetime made around $12m from his patents and he died around 1931. So scaling that amount (so would be around $1Bn), does appear to fall short upon many drug patents. For example - the drug Lipitor's patent made over $100Bn. But things are never just about money as a comparison metric, just that when you can reduce things to that metric, hard not to compare.

dredmorbius 7y ago
It's not how much money the patent inventor makes, but how much is creditable, in total, to the invention. Figuring out how to allocate that amongst contributing inventions is ... an "interesting" problem. As examples, take what Vaclav Smil notes as the inventions powering the world: Otto cycle, Diesel, and Turbine engines. Of the three inventors, Diesel died a suicide and near if not bankrupt (or at least insolvent), Parsons (turbine) did well, Otto AFAIU made workman's or salaryman's wages, but nothing terribly impressive. The typewriter (you're likely using something inspired at least in part by it), Turing machine, Unix, and synthetic insulin are all inventions which have returned vastly more in net social benefit than their inventors ever saw, for various reasons. The elevator made possible an entire class of structures. Safety brakes on railroad carriages likewise, as did Bessemer and subsequent steel (wrought-iron rail was used previously, but would split easily). The net social return of modern medicine is, by many accounts, singularly unimpressive. Pharmceuticals in particular may return large revenues and profits, but deliver little by way of additional lifespan, reduced mortality, or more complex measures such as QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years). See Robert J. Gordon's The Rise and Fall of American Growth, which discusses this at length, or the work of Victor Fuchs, health economist. Some devices (or substances, availed via processes) are absolutely essential to various modern activities. Others could be fairly readily substituted at relatively low additional cost. The models for accounting for this appear ... poor at best.
- Zenst 7y ago
  Exactly - it is hard to quantify how beneficial to humanity that a patent/invention/discovery is. No clear metric beyond fiscal alas. May well find that some of the best inventions are the ones we take for granted and in their time - made nothing. Tinned food, being one of the greatest ever as a way to preserve food (Nicolas Appert). Then their is the tin opener. I suppose one way to quantify it would be sit down to work out what inventions you used in a week and with that, not all inventions are used by everybody, but some common ones we take for granted are, and in a way that we glibly just dismiss or overlook them.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    I agree it's challenging, but I don't think it's impossible, at least in aggregate and as a first-order estimate. Or that fiscal is all we're left with. The case of inventions long going unsung is a whole 'nother aspect. Or of inventions that came around at one point in time but really didn't hit their prime until far later. Example: The drilling rigs which were used during the early part of the petroleum era -- 1859 - 1900 or so, were based on a 1,300 year old Chinese method for salt brine drilling. The main change since has been the introduction of rotary cutter heads (in the early 20th century, possibly late 19th), rather than a fixed bit at the drillhead itself. And yes, there've been incidental improvements in metalurgy, diamond-coated cutters, carbide steel, drilling muds, and more recently, hydrofracking (itself dating to the 1950s). For measures of impact, I'd look to the work, again, of Vaclav Smil, who's quantified a bunch of this stuff and has some good thoughts on how to go about that.

by Zenst 7y ago

dredmorbius 7y ago

It's not how much money the patent inventor makes, but how much is creditable, in total, to the invention. Figuring out how to allocate that amongst contributing inventions is ... an "interesting" problem. As examples, take what Vaclav Smil notes as the inventions powering the world: Otto cycle, Diesel, and Turbine engines. Of the three inventors, Diesel died a suicide and near if not bankrupt (or at least insolvent), Parsons (turbine) did well, Otto AFAIU made workman's or salaryman's wages, but nothing terribly impressive. The typewriter (you're likely using something inspired at least in part by it), Turing machine, Unix, and synthetic insulin are all inventions which have returned vastly more in net social benefit than their inventors ever saw, for various reasons. The elevator made possible an entire class of structures. Safety brakes on railroad carriages likewise, as did Bessemer and subsequent steel (wrought-iron rail was used previously, but would split easily). The net social return of modern medicine is, by many accounts, singularly unimpressive. Pharmceuticals in particular may return large revenues and profits, but deliver little by way of additional lifespan, reduced mortality, or more complex measures such as QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years). See Robert J. Gordon's The Rise and Fall of American Growth, which discusses this at length, or the work of Victor Fuchs, health economist. Some devices (or substances, availed via processes) are absolutely essential to various modern activities. Others could be fairly readily substituted at relatively low additional cost. The models for accounting for this appear ... poor at best.

Zenst 7y ago
Exactly - it is hard to quantify how beneficial to humanity that a patent/invention/discovery is. No clear metric beyond fiscal alas. May well find that some of the best inventions are the ones we take for granted and in their time - made nothing. Tinned food, being one of the greatest ever as a way to preserve food (Nicolas Appert). Then their is the tin opener. I suppose one way to quantify it would be sit down to work out what inventions you used in a week and with that, not all inventions are used by everybody, but some common ones we take for granted are, and in a way that we glibly just dismiss or overlook them.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  I agree it's challenging, but I don't think it's impossible, at least in aggregate and as a first-order estimate. Or that fiscal is all we're left with. The case of inventions long going unsung is a whole 'nother aspect. Or of inventions that came around at one point in time but really didn't hit their prime until far later. Example: The drilling rigs which were used during the early part of the petroleum era -- 1859 - 1900 or so, were based on a 1,300 year old Chinese method for salt brine drilling. The main change since has been the introduction of rotary cutter heads (in the early 20th century, possibly late 19th), rather than a fixed bit at the drillhead itself. And yes, there've been incidental improvements in metalurgy, diamond-coated cutters, carbide steel, drilling muds, and more recently, hydrofracking (itself dating to the 1950s). For measures of impact, I'd look to the work, again, of Vaclav Smil, who's quantified a bunch of this stuff and has some good thoughts on how to go about that.