5 ms·

There was not necessarily disregard of intellectual property at least when Americans were the owners. Many things like the creation of the commercial sewing mac

by travisp 16y ago

There was not necessarily disregard of intellectual property at least when Americans were the owners. Many things like the creation of the commercial sewing machine in the mid 1800s were strongly encouraged by patent and intellectual property protection, despite the fact that patent thickets arose -- i.e. many competing individuals held patents covering individual components necessary to a good sewing machine. How these issues were resolved actually has great relevance for so-called modern issues of "patent trolls," since they existed back then too. Source: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354849

nostrademons 16y ago
Think earlier, around the turn of the 1800s. The power loom and the steam engine were both British technologies protected by patent in Britain, but their patents weren't recognized or enforceable in America. And so we got the American mills at Lowell, Mississippi river and Great Lakes steamers, and the transcontinental railroad. The steamboat is probably a good example of this effect at work. In Britain, Boulton and Watt's patent allowed them to block development of high-pressure steam engines, because Watt thought they were dangerous. In the US, his patent didn't apply, and so Fitch and Fulton were allowed to experiment freely with increasing the boiler pressure, and eventually managed to produce a design capable of powering boats. That opened up a whole new area of commerce.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >both British technologies protected by patent in Britain, but their patents weren't recognized or enforceable in America. That's not a disregard for IP law though. That in a way is IP law working. The British company got their limited monopoly to ensure they could pay their workers and continue to innovate and the public domain got the explicit and detailed knowledge on how to exploit that invention. >In Britain, Boulton and Watt's patent allowed them to block development of high-pressure steam engines, because Watt thought they were dangerous. This is certainly not a feature of current patent legislation, I suspect it wasn't then either. Patents protect commercial exploitation. They do not prevent rivals from using the invention for research and development, indeed that's half the point. Patents are an exchange of knowledge for a limited monopoly on it's commercial use. Also, you're free to use a patent specification and work the invention for yourself as a private individual.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Whether or not you're free to do private R&D on a patent-protected technology, most people don't. After all, the reason IP laws exist is that people ostensibly won't do research if there is no financial incentive to do so. This leads to the somewhat paradoxical result that no innovation would happen if IP laws didn't exist, and yet a large percentage of today's industries were founded or developed by people who pretty much operated with a casual disregard for other people's IP. Perhaps this is why PG looks for "naughtiness" in founders. The modus operandi of most startups seems to be to do what you were going to do anyway, ignore any patents or prior art out there (but don't willfully go out and copy people either, or if you do, restrain it to borrowing general ideas and not whole chunks of code), and then use the inevitable lawsuit as a PR boost.

by travisp 16y ago

nostrademons 16y ago

Think earlier, around the turn of the 1800s. The power loom and the steam engine were both British technologies protected by patent in Britain, but their patents weren't recognized or enforceable in America. And so we got the American mills at Lowell, Mississippi river and Great Lakes steamers, and the transcontinental railroad. The steamboat is probably a good example of this effect at work. In Britain, Boulton and Watt's patent allowed them to block development of high-pressure steam engines, because Watt thought they were dangerous. In the US, his patent didn't apply, and so Fitch and Fulton were allowed to experiment freely with increasing the boiler pressure, and eventually managed to produce a design capable of powering boats. That opened up a whole new area of commerce.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>both British technologies protected by patent in Britain, but their patents weren't recognized or enforceable in America. That's not a disregard for IP law though. That in a way is IP law working. The British company got their limited monopoly to ensure they could pay their workers and continue to innovate and the public domain got the explicit and detailed knowledge on how to exploit that invention. >In Britain, Boulton and Watt's patent allowed them to block development of high-pressure steam engines, because Watt thought they were dangerous. This is certainly not a feature of current patent legislation, I suspect it wasn't then either. Patents protect commercial exploitation. They do not prevent rivals from using the invention for research and development, indeed that's half the point. Patents are an exchange of knowledge for a limited monopoly on it's commercial use. Also, you're free to use a patent specification and work the invention for yourself as a private individual.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Whether or not you're free to do private R&D on a patent-protected technology, most people don't. After all, the reason IP laws exist is that people ostensibly won't do research if there is no financial incentive to do so. This leads to the somewhat paradoxical result that no innovation would happen if IP laws didn't exist, and yet a large percentage of today's industries were founded or developed by people who pretty much operated with a casual disregard for other people's IP. Perhaps this is why PG looks for "naughtiness" in founders. The modus operandi of most startups seems to be to do what you were going to do anyway, ignore any patents or prior art out there (but don't willfully go out and copy people either, or if you do, restrain it to borrowing general ideas and not whole chunks of code), and then use the inevitable lawsuit as a PR boost.