4 ms·

There's obviously a balance to be made with incentivizing inventing though. Some inventions are expensive and nobody would do them without patent protection. So

There's obviously a balance to be made with incentivizing inventing though. Some inventions are expensive and nobody would do them without patent protection. Some are trivial though and it's those that are a problem. Perhaps whether you can get a patent should depend on how much time has passed from when the invention was possible (existence of necessary prior inventions/science/etc.) and when you invented it. If nobody else thought of it for 10 years, maybe it's worth a patent but if it's an immediate consequence of something else, then perhaps it's obvious and deserves no protection.

mjevans 6y ago
Cleanroom duplication of the invention should probably be strong grounds for invalidation of a given patent. (Since it would be obvious to an engineer skilled in the 'art' (science).)
kiba 6y ago
There's obviously a balance to be made with incentivizing inventing though. Some inventions are expensive and nobody would do them without patent protection. Some are trivial though and it's those that are a problem. That is quite an assumption, especially in assuming that the only way for governments to incentivize the development of technology is to give someone exclusive monopolies on those inventions. We could give them grants, reward money, whatever. There are other ways to incentivize invention without tramping on companies and inventors' abilities to build upon the work of each other. Not to mention that the development of 3D printers take hardware, which is quite expensive.
TheDong 6y ago
I question that it's obvious that we need to incentivize inventing through any form of IP law. Let's look at software. Some of the most notable pieces of software, from postgres, to linux, to redis, are available under open source copyright license. Those licenses are intentionally waiving copyright law. Inventions of those pieces of software happened with no expectation of IP. Let's look at academic research: research institutes and academic institutes are more interested in getting published, advancing the arts, and improving their own name in the field than they are with patents. A large chunk of ground-breaking research done in academia or research-labs is done with the primary goal of getting a paper published out of it, and whether there's a patent or not, it's not what motivated the research. Often, there is no patent. In fact, I think the open source software movement is the most obvious example of what happens when you don't have IP. The whole point of open source licenses is to defang copyright law (to use copyright law against itself). In the case of the Apache2 license, it also gives up patent rights. Within the open source software movement, innovation and profit are both common. Both happen in spite of the lack of IP protection. Why is that the case? Well, software developers who create great things and release it into the open source world often want to increase their talents, increase their recognition, or solve a problem they or others are facing. Those motivations all exist even without IP nor profit motives. Some of them do have a profit motive and create open source software in order to be hired or in order to sell support (or for some other more complex funding model). Those also don't need IP laws to help them. I admit, software is interesting. It can be argued to be an art in many ways, and it's much easier to accept that artists will continue producing art, even without financial or IP benefits. However, I think that it's likely other fields where this holds as well. I think that someone who has an idea to improve a part of a car will still wish to publish the idea to gain recognition, or negotiate with an auto company to try and implement the idea to gain both fortune and fame. I think the drug companies will still wish to produce and sell drugs, and their research employees will still attempt to find new and better drugs, even with the only motive being commercial profit, not IP + commercial profit. I think software provides ample evidence that you can profit off something even when IP is not in play. That the original inventor has enough of a headstart.
- kiba 6y ago
  The argument is that this doesn't apply to innovation that are expensive. However, I already pointed out that 3D printer are more expensive to develop due to involvement of physical objects rather than just writing line of codes. In any case, governments are perfectly capable of funding big expensive projects should we wish them to do so.
  - mreome 6y ago
    It's difficult to get the general public to support taxes that will fund the repair of degrading bridges, leaking dams, and cracked roadways that may soon fail and actually KILL them. Do you honestly believe you’ll find widespread support for government funding of all major industry research? Also, how does that investment get prioritized? What if the general public decides that some industry isn't worth investment, despite some people believing it is? Without patents, there is no way for the private sector to invest in R&D without just knowingly burning money. I'm not saying government investment in research isn't a good idea. I think it is, and is something we should be doing more of, but it's not a replacement for patents.
    - Jetrel 6y ago
      Honestly, our general public really hasn't had any direct say in how our tax dollars are spent for most of America's history. Outside of really rare individual referendums, the public doesn't sit down and decide on individual taxes like bridge repair/etc. We're not a democracy; we're a republic. If you look at polling, virtually everybody in our country would be in favor of repairing bridges/etc. Furthermore, both political parties in every major election for the past few decades have explicitly promised to enact massive funding for exactly this. Ergo - we're all voting in favor of major infrastructure funding - i.e. voting "yes, please, tax me and pay for bridge repair. Do it." The public will is absolutely behind this. Our real problem is we're terrible judges of character - we elected people who just pocketed the money, instead. Oops.
- gentleman11 6y ago
  Linux copies Unix (Bell labs), postgresql copied sql (IBM); redis is open core and is a bit of a different situation; newer examples are godot copying unity and blender copying other 3d programs. Each implementation is often better than the original, but they are not examples of novel inventions. I forget the history of gcc but assume it was not the only c compiler? Anki is based on supermemo, etc. Emacs was a novel invention, as was the concept of foss development. I love foss but it’s often more about freedom and trust and community and improvement, more than about innovation.
defnotashton2 6y ago
You get market share and rep for bringing a product. People are naturally incentivized to innovate within their grasp. At some point all new technology is so expensive it's beyond reach, until it's not.. When governments force these things out of time with artificial incentives for political reasons often the market grows around it with poor incentives. The cost of which is filled long term for the negative by the tax payer. The US interstate is a good example. If the government had waited until it was cheaper and the private sector would have done it then cities wouldn't have developed with such sprawl issues because the citizens and private markets would have had the opportunity to have paid for those costs and they wouldn't have. Cities would instead have been more dense and later when cheaper more viable public transportation systems were developed they would have been a lot more effective and more widely deployed. Furthermore this takes resources away from the natural market growth that would have otherwise gone toward the natural market direction.

mjevans 6y ago

Cleanroom duplication of the invention should probably be strong grounds for invalidation of a given patent. (Since it would be obvious to an engineer skilled in the 'art' (science).)

kiba 6y ago

There's obviously a balance to be made with incentivizing inventing though. Some inventions are expensive and nobody would do them without patent protection. Some are trivial though and it's those that are a problem. That is quite an assumption, especially in assuming that the only way for governments to incentivize the development of technology is to give someone exclusive monopolies on those inventions. We could give them grants, reward money, whatever. There are other ways to incentivize invention without tramping on companies and inventors' abilities to build upon the work of each other. Not to mention that the development of 3D printers take hardware, which is quite expensive.

TheDong 6y ago

I question that it's obvious that we need to incentivize inventing through any form of IP law. Let's look at software. Some of the most notable pieces of software, from postgres, to linux, to redis, are available under open source copyright license. Those licenses are intentionally waiving copyright law. Inventions of those pieces of software happened with no expectation of IP. Let's look at academic research: research institutes and academic institutes are more interested in getting published, advancing the arts, and improving their own name in the field than they are with patents. A large chunk of ground-breaking research done in academia or research-labs is done with the primary goal of getting a paper published out of it, and whether there's a patent or not, it's not what motivated the research. Often, there is no patent. In fact, I think the open source software movement is the most obvious example of what happens when you don't have IP. The whole point of open source licenses is to defang copyright law (to use copyright law against itself). In the case of the Apache2 license, it also gives up patent rights. Within the open source software movement, innovation and profit are both common. Both happen in spite of the lack of IP protection. Why is that the case? Well, software developers who create great things and release it into the open source world often want to increase their talents, increase their recognition, or solve a problem they or others are facing. Those motivations all exist even without IP nor profit motives. Some of them do have a profit motive and create open source software in order to be hired or in order to sell support (or for some other more complex funding model). Those also don't need IP laws to help them. I admit, software is interesting. It can be argued to be an art in many ways, and it's much easier to accept that artists will continue producing art, even without financial or IP benefits. However, I think that it's likely other fields where this holds as well. I think that someone who has an idea to improve a part of a car will still wish to publish the idea to gain recognition, or negotiate with an auto company to try and implement the idea to gain both fortune and fame. I think the drug companies will still wish to produce and sell drugs, and their research employees will still attempt to find new and better drugs, even with the only motive being commercial profit, not IP + commercial profit. I think software provides ample evidence that you can profit off something even when IP is not in play. That the original inventor has enough of a headstart.

kiba 6y ago
The argument is that this doesn't apply to innovation that are expensive. However, I already pointed out that 3D printer are more expensive to develop due to involvement of physical objects rather than just writing line of codes. In any case, governments are perfectly capable of funding big expensive projects should we wish them to do so.
- mreome 6y ago
  It's difficult to get the general public to support taxes that will fund the repair of degrading bridges, leaking dams, and cracked roadways that may soon fail and actually KILL them. Do you honestly believe you’ll find widespread support for government funding of all major industry research? Also, how does that investment get prioritized? What if the general public decides that some industry isn't worth investment, despite some people believing it is? Without patents, there is no way for the private sector to invest in R&D without just knowingly burning money. I'm not saying government investment in research isn't a good idea. I think it is, and is something we should be doing more of, but it's not a replacement for patents.
  - Jetrel 6y ago
    Honestly, our general public really hasn't had any direct say in how our tax dollars are spent for most of America's history. Outside of really rare individual referendums, the public doesn't sit down and decide on individual taxes like bridge repair/etc. We're not a democracy; we're a republic. If you look at polling, virtually everybody in our country would be in favor of repairing bridges/etc. Furthermore, both political parties in every major election for the past few decades have explicitly promised to enact massive funding for exactly this. Ergo - we're all voting in favor of major infrastructure funding - i.e. voting "yes, please, tax me and pay for bridge repair. Do it." The public will is absolutely behind this. Our real problem is we're terrible judges of character - we elected people who just pocketed the money, instead. Oops.
gentleman11 6y ago
Linux copies Unix (Bell labs), postgresql copied sql (IBM); redis is open core and is a bit of a different situation; newer examples are godot copying unity and blender copying other 3d programs. Each implementation is often better than the original, but they are not examples of novel inventions. I forget the history of gcc but assume it was not the only c compiler? Anki is based on supermemo, etc. Emacs was a novel invention, as was the concept of foss development. I love foss but it’s often more about freedom and trust and community and improvement, more than about innovation.

defnotashton2 6y ago

You get market share and rep for bringing a product. People are naturally incentivized to innovate within their grasp. At some point all new technology is so expensive it's beyond reach, until it's not.. When governments force these things out of time with artificial incentives for political reasons often the market grows around it with poor incentives. The cost of which is filled long term for the negative by the tax payer. The US interstate is a good example. If the government had waited until it was cheaper and the private sector would have done it then cities wouldn't have developed with such sprawl issues because the citizens and private markets would have had the opportunity to have paid for those costs and they wouldn't have. Cities would instead have been more dense and later when cheaper more viable public transportation systems were developed they would have been a lot more effective and more widely deployed. Furthermore this takes resources away from the natural market growth that would have otherwise gone toward the natural market direction.