4 ms·

At the end of the day, this is a deep legislation issue, patents should not exist at all. They are supposed to promote innovation, in practice, it's more about

by rvnx 3y ago

At the end of the day, this is a deep legislation issue, patents should not exist at all. They are supposed to promote innovation, in practice, it's more about protecting guys who sitting and waiting for passive cash. Once we give exclusive rights to all AI stuff to Nvidia, is the world going to be a better place ? What would be with ChatGPT if Google actually had enforced (or enforces) patents on Transformers. Is the world better since we have to pay a license to use the word "Smiley" and not "Emoji" ? (a >500M USD per year business btw).

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> Is the world better since we have to pay a license to use the word "Smiley" and not "Emoji" ? (a >500M USD per year business btw). If this is true it would fall under copyright or trademark protections, not patents.
- rvnx 3y ago
  You are absolutely right, just a side & +/- related topic that made me upset and wanted to rant about :)
huijzer 3y ago
I'm not so convinced of your argument yet. You point out some cases in which granting a patent will lead to reduced innovation, which I agree is bad. But how about innovations which might never have happened without the patent system in place? I agree with you that patents a probably a net negative for innovation, but we need to come up with a stronger argument than monopolies are bad.
- spongebobstoes 3y ago
  Can you provide some recent examples of where patents likely played a positive role in innovation?
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Fifty years ago they paid for Xerox's PARC where WYSIWYG and GUI interfaces were first developed targeting a mass audience.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      Iirc Apple paid (in Apple stock perhaps) but Microsoft didn't :)
    - sophacles 3y ago
      Right, I was so glad when those patents expired because the Xerox monopoly on my computer usage was annoying.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        Specifically the Laser printer patents paid for PARC, and then some. As mentioned a few days ago by another commenter.
    - kalleboo 3y ago
      By that logic we need to bring back a telephone monopoly since Bell Labs brought us so much innovation paid for by rip-off calling fees.
      - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
        By that logic if anything bad has ever resulted in anything good we have to keep doing the bad thing in magical hopes that it will keep causing good to happen.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Probably every pharmaceutical patent. In software? Um... <crickets>. (But you asked "where patents" and not "where software patents", so...)
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
seniorThrowaway 3y ago
There is a general problem with excessive rent seeking in our entire economy and society. But I don't think having zero patent protection is the answer. Like most problems with society, there is no easy answer, just a continual fight against corruption, rent-seeking, nepotism, collusion, price fixing and all the other crappy human behaviors.
zackmorris 3y ago
I second the abolishment of patents. The reasons people are for/against patents are political. A rightist view would be that patents allow first-to-the-finish-line inventors to reap financial awards that lead to success and freedom. A leftist view would be that the opportunity cost of patents is an increased cost (analogous to a tax) on everyone else in the form of licensing fees and barred entry to markets as improvements in science and technology make patents more obvious than innovative. If we don't reform the system by at least reducing patent durations to something reasonable like 3-5 years, then that will create an incentive to operate outside the market. People will just use open source and 3D printing to build their own stuff, rather than purchasing it from someone else. In other words, more patents = bigger black market and smaller market/profits for those operating legally. It's not a good look anymore to favor policies which encourage corruption. Other examples of unintended consequences include the War on Drugs, the Citizens United decision, NAFTA, etc etc etc. We know better now and we can do better, rather than letting special interests dictate the manner in which we do business.
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  > A rightist view would be that patents allow first-to-the-finish-line inventors to reap financial awards that lead to success and freedom. A leftist view would be that the opportunity cost of patents is an increased cost Patents as originally formulated were to incentivize public disclosure of new techniques for building things. Portland cement is a great example: the company could have kept the formula secret and profited significantly, but instead a patent was filed, they got a short monopoly, and for over a century we have enjoyed the benefits of a publicly known formula. Pure ideas (like math and physics) were considered non-patentable. If we can reform patents to disallow patenting software (and all other pure "ideas" with no physical realization), I think that will continue to help encourage public disclosure of helpful techniques (like Portland cement) without all the stupid baggage of software patents.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - TimTheTinker 3y ago
adrr 3y ago
So you spend billions($2.5 billion being average) inventing a new drug and anyone should be allowed to copy and sell it? That would foster innovation and not kill pharmaceutical market?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- nottorp 3y ago
  2.3 billion of that being marketing expenses?
  - ahofmann 3y ago
    This is a very unhelpful pseudo question, that adds nothing to the conversation but can easily derail it. Do you have at least a source for that "claim"?
    - nottorp 3y ago
      Eh, I'm hyperbolizing of course. But I remember seeing statements here and there that at least half the "cost" of a new drug is marketing. Commercials, paying for 'conferences' for doctors etc. Not going to search for citations, I'm sure you have something ready to prove me wrong and show how 95% of the cost is blood, sweat and tears.
      - jandrewrogers 3y ago
        The marketing is critical because they have a limited window of time within which to recoup most of the development costs. If adoption ramps up too slowly, the company will not make enough money to offset the investment. Marketing improves time to revenue for a product where exclusivity will be short-lived. If they didn't spend on marketing, the R&D wouldn't exist, so it is kind of weird to act like this is a waste of money. It is like saying solar panels are bad for the climate because manufacturing them requires CO2 production. It shouldn't need to be said that no one would do marketing if it didn't more than pay for itself and offset the costs of the thing being marketed.

by rvnx 3y ago

anonymouskimmer 3y ago

> Is the world better since we have to pay a license to use the word "Smiley" and not "Emoji" ? (a >500M USD per year business btw). If this is true it would fall under copyright or trademark protections, not patents.

rvnx 3y ago
You are absolutely right, just a side & +/- related topic that made me upset and wanted to rant about :)

huijzer 3y ago

I'm not so convinced of your argument yet. You point out some cases in which granting a patent will lead to reduced innovation, which I agree is bad. But how about innovations which might never have happened without the patent system in place? I agree with you that patents a probably a net negative for innovation, but we need to come up with a stronger argument than monopolies are bad.

spongebobstoes 3y ago
Can you provide some recent examples of where patents likely played a positive role in innovation?
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Fifty years ago they paid for Xerox's PARC where WYSIWYG and GUI interfaces were first developed targeting a mass audience.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    Iirc Apple paid (in Apple stock perhaps) but Microsoft didn't :)
  - sophacles 3y ago
    Right, I was so glad when those patents expired because the Xerox monopoly on my computer usage was annoying.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      Specifically the Laser printer patents paid for PARC, and then some. As mentioned a few days ago by another commenter.
  - kalleboo 3y ago
    By that logic we need to bring back a telephone monopoly since Bell Labs brought us so much innovation paid for by rip-off calling fees.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      By that logic if anything bad has ever resulted in anything good we have to keep doing the bad thing in magical hopes that it will keep causing good to happen.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Probably every pharmaceutical patent. In software? Um... <crickets>. (But you asked "where patents" and not "where software patents", so...)
  - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

seniorThrowaway 3y ago

There is a general problem with excessive rent seeking in our entire economy and society. But I don't think having zero patent protection is the answer. Like most problems with society, there is no easy answer, just a continual fight against corruption, rent-seeking, nepotism, collusion, price fixing and all the other crappy human behaviors.

zackmorris 3y ago

I second the abolishment of patents. The reasons people are for/against patents are political. A rightist view would be that patents allow first-to-the-finish-line inventors to reap financial awards that lead to success and freedom. A leftist view would be that the opportunity cost of patents is an increased cost (analogous to a tax) on everyone else in the form of licensing fees and barred entry to markets as improvements in science and technology make patents more obvious than innovative. If we don't reform the system by at least reducing patent durations to something reasonable like 3-5 years, then that will create an incentive to operate outside the market. People will just use open source and 3D printing to build their own stuff, rather than purchasing it from someone else. In other words, more patents = bigger black market and smaller market/profits for those operating legally. It's not a good look anymore to favor policies which encourage corruption. Other examples of unintended consequences include the War on Drugs, the Citizens United decision, NAFTA, etc etc etc. We know better now and we can do better, rather than letting special interests dictate the manner in which we do business.

TimTheTinker 3y ago
> A rightist view would be that patents allow first-to-the-finish-line inventors to reap financial awards that lead to success and freedom. A leftist view would be that the opportunity cost of patents is an increased cost Patents as originally formulated were to incentivize public disclosure of new techniques for building things. Portland cement is a great example: the company could have kept the formula secret and profited significantly, but instead a patent was filed, they got a short monopoly, and for over a century we have enjoyed the benefits of a publicly known formula. Pure ideas (like math and physics) were considered non-patentable. If we can reform patents to disallow patenting software (and all other pure "ideas" with no physical realization), I think that will continue to help encourage public disclosure of helpful techniques (like Portland cement) without all the stupid baggage of software patents.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- TimTheTinker 3y ago

adrr 3y ago

So you spend billions($2.5 billion being average) inventing a new drug and anyone should be allowed to copy and sell it? That would foster innovation and not kill pharmaceutical market?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nottorp 3y ago
2.3 billion of that being marketing expenses?
- ahofmann 3y ago
  This is a very unhelpful pseudo question, that adds nothing to the conversation but can easily derail it. Do you have at least a source for that "claim"?
  - nottorp 3y ago
    Eh, I'm hyperbolizing of course. But I remember seeing statements here and there that at least half the "cost" of a new drug is marketing. Commercials, paying for 'conferences' for doctors etc. Not going to search for citations, I'm sure you have something ready to prove me wrong and show how 95% of the cost is blood, sweat and tears.
    - jandrewrogers 3y ago
      The marketing is critical because they have a limited window of time within which to recoup most of the development costs. If adoption ramps up too slowly, the company will not make enough money to offset the investment. Marketing improves time to revenue for a product where exclusivity will be short-lived. If they didn't spend on marketing, the R&D wouldn't exist, so it is kind of weird to act like this is a waste of money. It is like saying solar panels are bad for the climate because manufacturing them requires CO2 production. It shouldn't need to be said that no one would do marketing if it didn't more than pay for itself and offset the costs of the thing being marketed.