5 ms·

This is a surprisingly poor article for the FT. It confuses different types of IP legislation, and is full of unsupported assertions.

by czr80 14y ago

rwmj 14y ago
It's an opinion piece not a scientific paper. It doesn't need rigorous proof, and if you want that you can easily look at the papers they do reference.
- epistasis 14y ago
  An effective opinion piece should make arguments that are intelligible and convincing to knowledgable readers. If somebody was trying to argue that the SV funding model was fundamentally broken but confused basic terms, they would be rightly excoriated. If a knowledgable reader dismisses the writer as ignorant and confused on the subject, the best that the piece can aspire to is agitprop for riling up people that know little about the area but want to have an opinion on it.
Joeri 14y ago
The problem is that both sides of the debate state their claims on a foundation of unsupported assertions. As a consequence the entire debate is reduced to a battle of gut feelings. Where are the objective cost/benefit studies of the patent system?
- jedbrown 14y ago
  This book, despite its clear agenda, includes a fair amount of quantitative analysis. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... Chapter 3 has interesting historical case studies, including, for example, the patent-free flurry of innovation that increased the efficiency of the steam engine by 5x in the 25 years immediately following expiration of Watt's patent, in contrast to the efficiency plateau that occurred while Watt's patent was enforced. Chapter 8 has a modern macroeconomic analysis.
bartl 14y ago
That may be to show how people in the USA are overly respectful for "IP". Besides, if you can patent the look of icons (which is design, thus, art, and not in any way an invention), who is conflating the types of IP, anyway?
- czr80 14y ago
  You can get a design patent on the look of icons, but not a (utility) patent. Despite the name, a design patent is very different thing from a (utility) patent, which is what people normally think of as a patent. In many ways it's better to think of a design patent as a class of trademark. If we want to reform the "patent" system, then at the very least we need to be clear what we are arguing against. Different types of IP - patents, design patents, copyright, trademarks, trade dress, etc. - were intended to achieve very different social objectives. Each has its own sets of strengths and weaknesses, and each has been distorted by regulatory capture in different ways. I think it's important to understand these differences, and something of their history, to be able to make effective improvements.
- nirvana 14y ago
  You just confused a design patent with a utility patent. Frankly, I've personally not yet seen an anti-patent argument from someone who actually understood what patents were, how they worked, etc. They constantly confuse terms, misrepresents what the patents they are dogging actually say, or rely solely on unsupported assertions. Including hundreds of comments here on HN, all of which seem to be ideologically driven repetitions of talking points, and none of which come from people who have read the patents or which accurately represent what the patents actually cover. (Eg: all the commentary on the Samsung trial, not one criticizing the patents was accurate.) Its not like patents are secret- they're published on the web for anyone to read. Near as I can tell-- google felt they needed to rip off the iPhone for android in order to compete, and therefore, suddenly, patents are bad. Yet microsoft's metro UI shows this isn't the case....
  - josephlord 14y ago
    Im going to make an anti-patent comment hopefully without mistakes. Sticking to patents there are clearly real problems with the thicket of patents where many things can be infringing without realising it (while patents are public they are impractical to study or to get an idea of all the patents in an area like touch UIs and even if you could it is hard to correctly understand and interpret the claims to work around them). The cost of the legal actions is a real problem (for small companies) in itself partially caused by the weakness of the initial examination that means that many of the existing patents will be found invalid if ever tested in court. The lack of certainty over validity also harms patent holders who cannot really assume that really do have a valid patent and this will harm them in negotiations. If patents are to be kept (and the economic case isn't clear to me although it may be there) then if the primary examination cannot be improved then there should be a second and more in depth (and more expensive) examination that should be required before legal action is brought (or optionally to strengthen their negotiating position). After this phase it should weed out sufficient invalid patents so that there is an 80-90% chance it will be found valid in court.

This is a surprisingly poor article for the FT. It confuses different types of IP legislation, and is full of unsupported assertions.

by czr80 14y ago

This is a surprisingly poor article for the FT. It confuses different types of IP legislation, and is full of unsupported assertions.

rwmj 14y ago

It's an opinion piece not a scientific paper. It doesn't need rigorous proof, and if you want that you can easily look at the papers they do reference.

epistasis 14y ago
An effective opinion piece should make arguments that are intelligible and convincing to knowledgable readers. If somebody was trying to argue that the SV funding model was fundamentally broken but confused basic terms, they would be rightly excoriated. If a knowledgable reader dismisses the writer as ignorant and confused on the subject, the best that the piece can aspire to is agitprop for riling up people that know little about the area but want to have an opinion on it.

Joeri 14y ago

The problem is that both sides of the debate state their claims on a foundation of unsupported assertions. As a consequence the entire debate is reduced to a battle of gut feelings. Where are the objective cost/benefit studies of the patent system?

jedbrown 14y ago
This book, despite its clear agenda, includes a fair amount of quantitative analysis. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... Chapter 3 has interesting historical case studies, including, for example, the patent-free flurry of innovation that increased the efficiency of the steam engine by 5x in the 25 years immediately following expiration of Watt's patent, in contrast to the efficiency plateau that occurred while Watt's patent was enforced. Chapter 8 has a modern macroeconomic analysis.

bartl 14y ago

That may be to show how people in the USA are overly respectful for "IP". Besides, if you can patent the look of icons (which is design, thus, art, and not in any way an invention), who is conflating the types of IP, anyway?

czr80 14y ago
You can get a design patent on the look of icons, but not a (utility) patent. Despite the name, a design patent is very different thing from a (utility) patent, which is what people normally think of as a patent. In many ways it's better to think of a design patent as a class of trademark. If we want to reform the "patent" system, then at the very least we need to be clear what we are arguing against. Different types of IP - patents, design patents, copyright, trademarks, trade dress, etc. - were intended to achieve very different social objectives. Each has its own sets of strengths and weaknesses, and each has been distorted by regulatory capture in different ways. I think it's important to understand these differences, and something of their history, to be able to make effective improvements.
nirvana 14y ago
You just confused a design patent with a utility patent. Frankly, I've personally not yet seen an anti-patent argument from someone who actually understood what patents were, how they worked, etc. They constantly confuse terms, misrepresents what the patents they are dogging actually say, or rely solely on unsupported assertions. Including hundreds of comments here on HN, all of which seem to be ideologically driven repetitions of talking points, and none of which come from people who have read the patents or which accurately represent what the patents actually cover. (Eg: all the commentary on the Samsung trial, not one criticizing the patents was accurate.) Its not like patents are secret- they're published on the web for anyone to read. Near as I can tell-- google felt they needed to rip off the iPhone for android in order to compete, and therefore, suddenly, patents are bad. Yet microsoft's metro UI shows this isn't the case....
- josephlord 14y ago
  Im going to make an anti-patent comment hopefully without mistakes. Sticking to patents there are clearly real problems with the thicket of patents where many things can be infringing without realising it (while patents are public they are impractical to study or to get an idea of all the patents in an area like touch UIs and even if you could it is hard to correctly understand and interpret the claims to work around them). The cost of the legal actions is a real problem (for small companies) in itself partially caused by the weakness of the initial examination that means that many of the existing patents will be found invalid if ever tested in court. The lack of certainty over validity also harms patent holders who cannot really assume that really do have a valid patent and this will harm them in negotiations. If patents are to be kept (and the economic case isn't clear to me although it may be there) then if the primary examination cannot be improved then there should be a second and more in depth (and more expensive) examination that should be required before legal action is brought (or optionally to strengthen their negotiating position). After this phase it should weed out sufficient invalid patents so that there is an 80-90% chance it will be found valid in court.