3 ms·
That fewer patents are filed is not evidence that fewer innovations are taking place. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
by naasking 3y ago
That fewer patents are filed is not evidence that fewer innovations are taking place. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
- amalcon 3y agoThat fewer patents are filed is not an absence of evidence. It's evidence that fewer patents are being filed. If one believes patent filings are correlated with innovation (which is debatable either way), then it is (non-probative but still significant) evidence that fewer innovations are taking place.
- naasking 3y ago> If one believes patent filings are correlated with innovation This is exactly the claim I'm taking issue with. The OP implied that the legal definition of innovation was "patents filed" and implied that this is somehow meaningful, and I'm saying that the absence of patents is not evidence of a lack of innovation.