4 ms·
It's depressing that any entity can have monopolistic ownership over CRISPR. If someone wins, will they prevent people from using the technique without a hefty
by cwkoss 5y ago
It's depressing that any entity can have monopolistic ownership over CRISPR.
If someone wins, will they prevent people from using the technique without a hefty licensing fee? How much potential is there for this to slow scientific progress?
- rmbyrro 5y agoIf they couldn't have ownership over their research, they would probably do something else. In such case, how much potential is there for this to slow scientific progress?
- checkyoursudo 5y agoI have done plenty of cognitive science (intelligence, curiosity) research and psychology (personality) research that is unpatantable yet contributing to the pace of scientific progress. I have never considered slowing my research because of "ownership" of this work.
- mhb 5y agoNot exactly a steel man.
- checkyoursudo 5y agoNo, of course. I also don't mean that the parent comment isn't correct. Research velocity would surely slow down, but by how much is pretty unknowable.
- TaylorAlexander 5y agoI’ve become convinced that intellectual property restrictions significantly slow innovation. If no one was allowed to own information we’d still have to get things done and work to make a profit. Only once someone figured something out everyone could adopt it right away. Take a look at the landscape of innovation in 3D printers in the 13 years they were for sale under patent and the following 13 years after the patents expired. Innovation absolutely exploded! Instead of one company happy with $25,000 machines we had hackers, hobbyists, and engineers from all over the world working on solving problems and making the machines cheaper. Ten years after the patent expired the price dropped 100x from $25k to $250. Imagine how cheap medical care would be if all the patents on medical imaging equipment expired. If there were no patents the market still provides incentive to innovate as first movers and reputable brands stay competitive. Meanwhile patents allow big slow companies to sit on their rewards and charge high prices with little real innovation. Things would change, sure. Instead of few large investments we would see more frequent smaller investments. But market competition would still work and natural rewards to innovation persist. Only innovation propagates way faster. Intellectual property restrictions are a disaster in my mind. And sadly most people believe some basic fairy tale that we were told without ever caring to research if that story is even remotely true.
- rmbyrro 5y agoTo be clear: I'm not saying the current IP system is good. It is evil. But no IP would also be evil. The fact that when prices go down, consumption increases is just basic microeconomics. This is not evidence that removing IP would increase scientific progress or well-being. One way to approach this would be comparing countries that don't/can't enforce IP protection to countries who do. Of course would need to control for a lot of variables and it wouldn't be a perfect predictor, but already better than pure speculation.
- TaylorAlexander 5y agoYou’d appreciate this on the ground report from the culture of unauthorized but widespread copying in China. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago> The fact that when prices go down, consumption increases is just basic microeconomics. This is not evidence that removing IP would increase scientific progress or well-being. I think you have misunderstood my intent. I am not saying that increased consumption is evidence that we should eliminate patents. I am saying that reduced price of functional 3D printers is a sign of increased innovation. Actually I saw the innovation first hand in the user groups and mailing lists, and I am using the price as an indicator of what I saw. My point is that we would see more innovation if we eliminated patents and intellectual property restrictions. This would have the effect of lowering prices for things which I think is great, but my point is that patents don’t even do what we are commonly told they do. We are told they increase innovation but in my opinion there was far more innovation in 3D printing once the patents expired. And it’s no surprise. The only thing a patent actually does is restrict innovation. That is the single function of a patent. The story we are told is that by allowing a government decree to issue monopolies on ideas, there will be more profit in new ideas, leading to a net increase in innovation. But in my opinion this process so significantly restricts follow on innovation that the whole thing ends up being quite counter productive.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- moffkalast 5y agoReminds me of FDM 3D printing tech. Stratasys patented it in the 80s and proceeded to do fuck all with it except slow down progress in the field. It's only since 2009 when it expired that it became commercialized and mainstream, revolutionizing prototyping as we know it. At this point patents need to be replaced with a one time monetary reward system or a stipulation that everyone using the tech needs to pay you 5% royalties for a time duration or something of the sort, but no exclusive rights. With the way the climate is going we can no longer afford these 30 year tech setbacks or we're all screwed.
- namlem 5y agoThere are other possibilities. Such as a licensing system based around the idea of Harberger taxation. Basically, you make licensing of patents mandatory, and tax the patents based on the licensing fee. The higher the fee, the higher the tax. Or just cut the duration of patents. 20 years made sense back in the 1800s. These days it should probably be more like 7 years.
- namlem 5y agoIt least it's only for another 12 years.
- derbOac 5y agoYeah, the assumption underlying this case — that there's a single entity who discovered it or invented it — is fundamentally flawed. No to mention other problems.There's so much about this that's a textbook example of everything wrong with intellectual property and academic credit in our era.
- MontyCarloHall 5y agoThis is why there should be an annual fee to renew a patent that increases exponentially, with the base proportional to the worth of the individual/company filing the patent at the time of filing. That ties the duration of a patent directly to how much value it provides to the company over time, which is the rationale for having patents in the first place. A company could only afford to hold onto a patent for as long as it causes the company’s revenue to grow exponentially. Once the patented technology matures and growth plateaus, keeping the patent would become prohibitively expensive.
- zajio1am 5y agoWell, the general argument for patents is that before patent law, people just keep developed techniques secret, which slowed scientific progress even more, while patent process at least requires public disclosure.
- jeffxtreme 5y agoInteresting side point though from https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/02/28/uc-berkeley-loses-crispr-gene-editing-patent-case/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/02/28/uc-berkeley-loses-cri...: ''' But over time, according to one expert, the patents may lose value due to continued innovations. “By the time that large scale commercialization occurs, there will probably be supplemental or supplanting technologies,” according to the UC attorney, who asked that his name not be used. ''' So if mid and late-stage companies continue to innovate for e.g. the purpose of productionizing CRISPR, the effect of the original patent will lessen in value. A nice note that there continues to be an incentive for progress in this space.