3 ms·
You could argue that there is more economic incentive to invent new things as discoveries are worth more if you alone have the right to use them. This in turn c
by this_was_posted 4y ago
You could argue that there is more economic incentive to invent new things as discoveries are worth more if you alone have the right to use them. This in turn could lead to more investments in research that lead to more inventions that increase disruption.
- vanderZwan 4y agoI know that that has been one argument in favor of patents since forever. But that ignores the part where competing parties are not freely allowed to build on another person's patent, which is essential for making good improvements. And you can see this play out in the history of invention. For example, Edison stopped other people from doing research on the light bulb. Meanwhile the Netherlands was a country without IP laws at the time so Phillips quickly ended up producing the superior and cheaper product. No patent laws, bigger disruption. Similarly the Wright brothers were notorious for holding back aviation with their patents.
- mnau 4y agoJames Watt and his patents on steam engine are also an interesting case. Efficiency gains basically stopped for duration of the main patent patent and exploded later. On the other hand it is also case for more innovation due to necessity, e.g. his patent on beam connection to a shaft (linear-to-rotary movement) required others to come up with a different solutions (e.g. sun and planet gear).