5 ms·

Patents Are An Economic Absurdity

11 points by nickb 18y ago

gaius 18y ago
What utter gibberish. The patent system is designed to work like this: 1) You invest time and money in research and come up not with an idea but a concrete implementation of that idea. 2) You patent it 3) The patent gives you the exclusive right to use that implementation but ALSO requires you to divulge everything to the public. That bit is crucial. If someone wants to use your patent, they license it off you. Before that everyone had to keep everything secret in order to justify investing in the research in the first place, which really did harm innovation. 4) When the patent expires, it becomes public property. You HAVE to go on innovating if you want to make a living in intellectual property. Now the patent system at present is a little broken, but the author of that article has fundamentally misunderstood how it's even supposed to work. I don't think many people, who think of themselves as tech-savvy, really comprehend that because something can be copied for little or no cost, it cost nothing to create the first time.
- ksvs 18y ago
  You don't have to build a working implementation. You can patent a design.
  - DabAsteroid 18y ago
    The same goes for utility ([Edit: providing typically, when valuable, broad] protection of gadget, process, [Edit: software], etc.) patents: http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/file-early-file-often.html http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/file-early-file-... In Pfaff, Justice Stevens wrote: "Second, the invention must be ready for patenting. That condition may be satisfied in at least two ways: by proof of reduction to practice before the critical date; or by proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention." (Id., at 12) All one has to do is show how one skilled in the art can build the thing (or perform the process). The actual building of a working model is not legally necessary. By the way, these are the current (2004) USPTO utility-patent categories: http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/govt/class_list/class_name_gov.htm http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/govt/class_list/class_name_gov.h... Unlike utility patents, design patents are usually narrow, and therefore [Edit: usually] worthless: http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/different-patent-types.html http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/different-patent... A design patent only covers the ornamental outward appearance of an article of manufacture and thus provides very narrow protection.
  - gaius 18y ago
    The point being that you can't patent an idea "do X" you have to have a "way to do X".
- anamax 18y ago
  Why is "invest time and money" important? None of the claimed benefits of a patent system depend on the invention process. If someone falls in the shower and wakes up spewing new ways to bend metal, I want her to tell all. I don't want her to go trade secret and I don't want her to say "what's the point - I won't benefit from my secret sauce because it came in the wrong color jar."
  - rflrob 18y ago
    "invest time and money" is important because it's the behavior that the patent system is looking to reward. Otherwise, for the vast majority of things that are patented, people might just say, "eh, why should I research it? If I do, someone else will just steal my idea and do it a little bit better and/or a little bit cheaper." The article, as far as I can tell, never takes into account the possibility that without a patent system, some research won't be done.
bbgm 18y ago
The patent system is clearly broken. Case in point the drug industry where derivative, "me too" drugs get through a system, and they are clearly not innovative. Plus some patents are so broad that they completely stiffle innovation. Patents, per se, are not necessarily bad, but the current system is so flawed, it likely hinders innovation rather than helps. I've been in situations where someone came up with something very interesting but there was the possibility of patent infringement due to some broad patent, so you had to either license the technology) or reimplement.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  I've been in situations where someone came up with something very interesting but there was the possibility of patent infringement due to some broad patent, so you had to either license the technology) or reimplement. No. If one can improve upon an existing patent, one can potentially collect royalties on that improvement. http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/EFF260E8-76BA-438A-80A7546BC09CA8F0/catID/2D212B35-B211-4FD4-B46D84A00C15CEBF/310/101/134/ART/ http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/EFF260E8-76BA-438A-... You can also get an improvement patent for an innovation that provides a new use for an existing invention. A party leveraging the improvement would then simply pay royalties to both the holders of the old broad, and the new less-broad, patents.
  - bbgm 18y ago
    Agreed, but the situation was a little different. We licensed software from academics, and during integration you'd find there were methods that seemingly ran afoul of an obscure patent, etc. These were not improvements (just general algorithms)
gasull 18y ago
s/Absurdity/Gridlock http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/the-gridlock-ec.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07...

11 points by nickb 18y ago

gaius 18y ago

What utter gibberish. The patent system is designed to work like this: 1) You invest time and money in research and come up not with an idea but a concrete implementation of that idea. 2) You patent it 3) The patent gives you the exclusive right to use that implementation but ALSO requires you to divulge everything to the public. That bit is crucial. If someone wants to use your patent, they license it off you. Before that everyone had to keep everything secret in order to justify investing in the research in the first place, which really did harm innovation. 4) When the patent expires, it becomes public property. You HAVE to go on innovating if you want to make a living in intellectual property. Now the patent system at present is a little broken, but the author of that article has fundamentally misunderstood how it's even supposed to work. I don't think many people, who think of themselves as tech-savvy, really comprehend that because something can be copied for little or no cost, it cost nothing to create the first time.

ksvs 18y ago
You don't have to build a working implementation. You can patent a design.
- DabAsteroid 18y ago
  The same goes for utility ([Edit: providing typically, when valuable, broad] protection of gadget, process, [Edit: software], etc.) patents: http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/file-early-file-often.html http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/file-early-file-... In Pfaff, Justice Stevens wrote: "Second, the invention must be ready for patenting. That condition may be satisfied in at least two ways: by proof of reduction to practice before the critical date; or by proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention." (Id., at 12) All one has to do is show how one skilled in the art can build the thing (or perform the process). The actual building of a working model is not legally necessary. By the way, these are the current (2004) USPTO utility-patent categories: http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/govt/class_list/class_name_gov.htm http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/govt/class_list/class_name_gov.h... Unlike utility patents, design patents are usually narrow, and therefore [Edit: usually] worthless: http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/different-patent-types.html http://robertplattbell.blogspot.com/2007/10/different-patent... A design patent only covers the ornamental outward appearance of an article of manufacture and thus provides very narrow protection.
- gaius 18y ago
  The point being that you can't patent an idea "do X" you have to have a "way to do X".
anamax 18y ago
Why is "invest time and money" important? None of the claimed benefits of a patent system depend on the invention process. If someone falls in the shower and wakes up spewing new ways to bend metal, I want her to tell all. I don't want her to go trade secret and I don't want her to say "what's the point - I won't benefit from my secret sauce because it came in the wrong color jar."
- rflrob 18y ago
  "invest time and money" is important because it's the behavior that the patent system is looking to reward. Otherwise, for the vast majority of things that are patented, people might just say, "eh, why should I research it? If I do, someone else will just steal my idea and do it a little bit better and/or a little bit cheaper." The article, as far as I can tell, never takes into account the possibility that without a patent system, some research won't be done.

bbgm 18y ago

The patent system is clearly broken. Case in point the drug industry where derivative, "me too" drugs get through a system, and they are clearly not innovative. Plus some patents are so broad that they completely stiffle innovation. Patents, per se, are not necessarily bad, but the current system is so flawed, it likely hinders innovation rather than helps. I've been in situations where someone came up with something very interesting but there was the possibility of patent infringement due to some broad patent, so you had to either license the technology) or reimplement.

DabAsteroid 18y ago
I've been in situations where someone came up with something very interesting but there was the possibility of patent infringement due to some broad patent, so you had to either license the technology) or reimplement. No. If one can improve upon an existing patent, one can potentially collect royalties on that improvement. http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/EFF260E8-76BA-438A-80A7546BC09CA8F0/catID/2D212B35-B211-4FD4-B46D84A00C15CEBF/310/101/134/ART/ http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectId/EFF260E8-76BA-438A-... You can also get an improvement patent for an innovation that provides a new use for an existing invention. A party leveraging the improvement would then simply pay royalties to both the holders of the old broad, and the new less-broad, patents.
- bbgm 18y ago
  Agreed, but the situation was a little different. We licensed software from academics, and during integration you'd find there were methods that seemingly ran afoul of an obscure patent, etc. These were not improvements (just general algorithms)

gasull 18y ago

s/Absurdity/Gridlock http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07/the-gridlock-ec.html http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/07...