20 ms·

I think the question is: What is the principled stance? The link you referenced would generally be considered the far-left stance, in that there really shouldn

I think the question is: What is the principled stance? The link you referenced would generally be considered the far-left stance, in that there really shouldn't be any property ownership at all (the referenced writings seem to suggest that even real property is a menace). Personally, I think there should be some reward for truly novel invention. I agree with the referenced writings that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich does not qualify for such protection, despite what the Patent Office may do. This is simply an indication of the level of work being done at the Patent Office, however, amongst other structural problems in the system. I do think that the patent system serves a purpose. For invention that is truly novel, it is worth the price of temporary monopoly to encourage disclosure. Many of the novel drugs on the market today might not exist without patent protection. It is simply too expensive to create a new drug without the promise of a future upside free from the inevitable copycats, who could underprice because they have no R&D expense. While drug companies are not usually considered the good guy due to over-pricing (because of patent monopolies), I think we are better off having the drugs in the long term and suffering the short term consequences of issuing the patent.

iwwr 16y ago
There is a very clear distinction between IP and 'physical (real?) property', we can at least agree on that, can we? There is a great drive to define IP in the same vein as physical property, in order to derive the same kinds of protections. But they are fundamentally different and so IP belongs in a category of its own. The problem with monopoly for inventions is that people can come up with the same ideas independently and some developments are merely logical engineering solutions to a given problem (other engineers may solve it the same way and independently). As for drugs, the real costs come from the regulatory procedures and less from the R&D itself. And even then, why should a company be granted a monopoly for simply following a logical series of steps (which any other company could do)? There is no clear idea what 'truly novel' means and how it's distinguished from an 'engineering solution' as defined above.
- rosenjon 16y ago
  I agree that IP belongs in a category of its own. Real property ownership lasts effectively forever. Intellectual property, in the form of patents, are temporary monopolies under the current system. So there are already distinctions. It is indeed difficult to decide what is truly "innovative" or "new". The patent system defines the criteria for issuing a patent as novel, non-obvious, and useful. These are very broad standards, and were much more applicable to physical invention than information technology invention. In my opinion, the patent system needs an update for the 21st Century. Those involved in developing software and information based technologies need to collaborate on a set of rules that set a high bar for issuing a patent, and a set of guidelines that streamline the application process for the U.S. Patent Office. The issues involved are usually highly technical, and rather than have a bunch of software engineer working in the patent office, it would make sense to force the applicant to prove via the application process that the product deserves protection. Personally, I think that pure software should be copyrighted, not patented. If there are hardware and software components, that is the only time that a patent should be considered. Ditto with genetics. You should not be able to patent the information for a gene. It may be reasonable to patent the tools used to discover genes, assuming they are not straight derivatives of naturally occurring enzymes.

iwwr 16y ago

There is a very clear distinction between IP and 'physical (real?) property', we can at least agree on that, can we? There is a great drive to define IP in the same vein as physical property, in order to derive the same kinds of protections. But they are fundamentally different and so IP belongs in a category of its own. The problem with monopoly for inventions is that people can come up with the same ideas independently and some developments are merely logical engineering solutions to a given problem (other engineers may solve it the same way and independently). As for drugs, the real costs come from the regulatory procedures and less from the R&D itself. And even then, why should a company be granted a monopoly for simply following a logical series of steps (which any other company could do)? There is no clear idea what 'truly novel' means and how it's distinguished from an 'engineering solution' as defined above.

rosenjon 16y ago
I agree that IP belongs in a category of its own. Real property ownership lasts effectively forever. Intellectual property, in the form of patents, are temporary monopolies under the current system. So there are already distinctions. It is indeed difficult to decide what is truly "innovative" or "new". The patent system defines the criteria for issuing a patent as novel, non-obvious, and useful. These are very broad standards, and were much more applicable to physical invention than information technology invention. In my opinion, the patent system needs an update for the 21st Century. Those involved in developing software and information based technologies need to collaborate on a set of rules that set a high bar for issuing a patent, and a set of guidelines that streamline the application process for the U.S. Patent Office. The issues involved are usually highly technical, and rather than have a bunch of software engineer working in the patent office, it would make sense to force the applicant to prove via the application process that the product deserves protection. Personally, I think that pure software should be copyrighted, not patented. If there are hardware and software components, that is the only time that a patent should be considered. Ditto with genetics. You should not be able to patent the information for a gene. It may be reasonable to patent the tools used to discover genes, assuming they are not straight derivatives of naturally occurring enzymes.