7 ms·

Economist: Would the world be better off with fewer patents?

37 points by ajb 14y ago

bpatrianakos 14y ago
No. Don't ever ask a question in a headline again. Take a stand.
- chc 14y ago
  It's a poll. It has to ask a question by definition. (On the other hand, I have no idea why a poll was submitted as news.)
  - ktizo 14y ago
    Pharyngulation probably.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      What is the origin of that term in this context? I just spent several minutes (an eternity in Google/-pedia time) searching for definitions, and the best answer I could infer from the results was that someone named their blog after the pharyngula stage of embryonic development, and used their blog's popularity to manipulate online polls. Am I close?
      - ktizo 14y ago
        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pharyngulate http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pharyngulate
sharkweek 14y ago
I don't know if I'd necessarily say we'd be better off with fewer -- but I think there should be some regulation on who is doing what with them. Eliminating the ability for someone to squat on a patent with the sole intention of suing "infringement" would be a great start.
- aretiste 14y ago
  yes. this is exactly the issue. in fact there are some patent owning institutions who have mandates that prevent them from licensing their patents unless the licensee promises to develop. the licensee can't just sit on the patent and do nothing. their is an obligation to develop. myrvold and his patent troll economic theory totally disregard development (though he will always claim otherwise and cite some red herring examples). while his firm won't "do nothing" as a licensee, they will not develop. they simply wave their big stick, a massive patent pool. they will pose the threat of litigation through noname shell companies. no doubt with these threats he can persuade institutions like the ones above to forget all about development as well. it's all about moving capital. there are no doubt people, including patent policy makers, who think he and his IT patent lawyer co-founder are "brilliant" and are leading us toward a bright future. after all people are getting paid. but it seems some people are also starting to wise up to the game he is playing and the long-term effects on the system.
- rayiner 14y ago
  I agree some regulation is in order, but I think you have to carefully distinguish squatting from legitimately transacting in patents. ARM is right now a practicing entity. They do the design, which is their expertise, and license their patents and other IP to companies who integrate and manufacture processors. This is an example of a patent being used to facilitate a useful division of labor. Now, what happens if ARM wants to get out of the business? Could they sell their IP to a third party who doesn't want to design micro processors, but just wants the right to receive the licensing revenue? It's easy to define squatting in ways that prevent that, IMHO, legitimate transaction.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    I would remove the right to transaction itself. If you don't want to collect your own licence fees, you can always licence an agency to do it on your behalf. I don't think a legally granted monopoly to inventors in order to encourage invention should be a transferable asset, and the names on the patent should all be sentient entities.
aretiste 14y ago
the title should be: would the world would be better off with fewer patent trolls?
steve8918 14y ago
I like Bezos's suggestion of having shorter patents for software. 3-5 years is enough to protect innovators, but not long enough to stifle further innovation, and probably not long enough for patent trolls to purchase and then sue people.
- mikeash 14y ago
  How about exponentially increasing renewal fees? $1 for the first year, $2 for the second, $4 for the first, etc. If the patent is valuable then the owner can keep it going longer, but it will still become unsustainably expensive before too long, and huge portfolios of long-lived patents would be impractical.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    I once suggested this for copyright terms, but someone pointed out a big problem: what is the unit that that "$1" fee covers? I can write an entire book under 1 copyright, easily keeping it going for a decade with your regime. But a photographer produces hundreds or thousands of copyrighted works a year. You might try doing your regime with the number of claims, and the company can decide how many to keep fresh, but it then leads to weird edge-cases like keeping a few things secret for now to patent later -- which is the opposite of what the patent system intends. Patents encourage people to publish their inventions for others to study, in exchange for limited exclusivity to market and/or use their invention.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      Yeah, I don't think it works for copyrights, but patents already seem to have this solved. There's already a set unit for them, and they already cost a substantial amount of money (unlike copyright, which is currently free). Keeping things secret now to patent them later is a problem, but no worse than it is now, I think. The same incentives apply to the exponential scheme as to the current hard limit. You'd keep the requirement to file within a certain time of the first public reveal, so you'd have to move quickly if you wanted to patent anything you were actually going to use.
- 14y ago
pjscott 14y ago
The main article is here: http://www.economist.com/node/21561888 http://www.economist.com/node/21561888
knewter 14y ago
So something that I think the courts have lost sight of is the purported reason for patents in the first place. They exist to encourage innovators to make their inventions public, so that knowledge will not be lost. With something like 'pinch to zoom,' there is no WAY to benefit from that 'invention' without making it public. Consequently, how the hell is it patentable?
nova 14y ago
The world would be better with NO patents. Copyright is more than enough for software, medical research should be directly funded by the goverments (just like weapons manufacturers or big public infrastructures), and the rest just on trade secrets. We are now in a interconnected world, rich with information. Independent reinvention is extremely easy. The risk of some genius taking his great, great, unique discovery to the grave because of the lack of patents is tiny compared with the economic, scientific and technological damage of this constant hemorrhage of time, money and energy that is the patent system. No more insurmountable entry barriers for entrepreneurs, no more monopolies, no more trolls, no more unnecessary roundabouts to avoid using obvious patents. The only one to lose would be the patent lawyers. Forget the romantic fairy tale of the poor lonely inventor robbed of his great idea by big business. Using patents in court is extremely expensive, he couldn't afford them anyway. Patents are guns for big guys. And no mention to the goodness of the free market. Patents are government-granted monopolies. You couldn't be furthest from a free, competitive model of an economy. Patents are not capitalism, they resemble more some feudal privilege taken from the middle ages.
- Tycho 14y ago
  What if you wanted to conduct medical research but the government wasn't interested in funding you?

37 points by ajb 14y ago

bpatrianakos 14y ago

No. Don't ever ask a question in a headline again. Take a stand.

chc 14y ago
It's a poll. It has to ask a question by definition. (On the other hand, I have no idea why a poll was submitted as news.)
- ktizo 14y ago
  Pharyngulation probably.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    What is the origin of that term in this context? I just spent several minutes (an eternity in Google/-pedia time) searching for definitions, and the best answer I could infer from the results was that someone named their blog after the pharyngula stage of embryonic development, and used their blog's popularity to manipulate online polls. Am I close?
    - ktizo 14y ago
      http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pharyngulate http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pharyngulate

sharkweek 14y ago

I don't know if I'd necessarily say we'd be better off with fewer -- but I think there should be some regulation on who is doing what with them. Eliminating the ability for someone to squat on a patent with the sole intention of suing "infringement" would be a great start.

aretiste 14y ago
yes. this is exactly the issue. in fact there are some patent owning institutions who have mandates that prevent them from licensing their patents unless the licensee promises to develop. the licensee can't just sit on the patent and do nothing. their is an obligation to develop. myrvold and his patent troll economic theory totally disregard development (though he will always claim otherwise and cite some red herring examples). while his firm won't "do nothing" as a licensee, they will not develop. they simply wave their big stick, a massive patent pool. they will pose the threat of litigation through noname shell companies. no doubt with these threats he can persuade institutions like the ones above to forget all about development as well. it's all about moving capital. there are no doubt people, including patent policy makers, who think he and his IT patent lawyer co-founder are "brilliant" and are leading us toward a bright future. after all people are getting paid. but it seems some people are also starting to wise up to the game he is playing and the long-term effects on the system.
rayiner 14y ago
I agree some regulation is in order, but I think you have to carefully distinguish squatting from legitimately transacting in patents. ARM is right now a practicing entity. They do the design, which is their expertise, and license their patents and other IP to companies who integrate and manufacture processors. This is an example of a patent being used to facilitate a useful division of labor. Now, what happens if ARM wants to get out of the business? Could they sell their IP to a third party who doesn't want to design micro processors, but just wants the right to receive the licensing revenue? It's easy to define squatting in ways that prevent that, IMHO, legitimate transaction.
- ktizo 14y ago
  I would remove the right to transaction itself. If you don't want to collect your own licence fees, you can always licence an agency to do it on your behalf. I don't think a legally granted monopoly to inventors in order to encourage invention should be a transferable asset, and the names on the patent should all be sentient entities.

aretiste 14y ago

the title should be: would the world would be better off with fewer patent trolls?

steve8918 14y ago

I like Bezos's suggestion of having shorter patents for software. 3-5 years is enough to protect innovators, but not long enough to stifle further innovation, and probably not long enough for patent trolls to purchase and then sue people.

mikeash 14y ago
How about exponentially increasing renewal fees? $1 for the first year, $2 for the second, $4 for the first, etc. If the patent is valuable then the owner can keep it going longer, but it will still become unsustainably expensive before too long, and huge portfolios of long-lived patents would be impractical.
- danielweber 14y ago
  I once suggested this for copyright terms, but someone pointed out a big problem: what is the unit that that "$1" fee covers? I can write an entire book under 1 copyright, easily keeping it going for a decade with your regime. But a photographer produces hundreds or thousands of copyrighted works a year. You might try doing your regime with the number of claims, and the company can decide how many to keep fresh, but it then leads to weird edge-cases like keeping a few things secret for now to patent later -- which is the opposite of what the patent system intends. Patents encourage people to publish their inventions for others to study, in exchange for limited exclusivity to market and/or use their invention.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Yeah, I don't think it works for copyrights, but patents already seem to have this solved. There's already a set unit for them, and they already cost a substantial amount of money (unlike copyright, which is currently free). Keeping things secret now to patent them later is a problem, but no worse than it is now, I think. The same incentives apply to the exponential scheme as to the current hard limit. You'd keep the requirement to file within a certain time of the first public reveal, so you'd have to move quickly if you wanted to patent anything you were actually going to use.
14y ago

pjscott 14y ago

The main article is here: http://www.economist.com/node/21561888 http://www.economist.com/node/21561888

knewter 14y ago

So something that I think the courts have lost sight of is the purported reason for patents in the first place. They exist to encourage innovators to make their inventions public, so that knowledge will not be lost. With something like 'pinch to zoom,' there is no WAY to benefit from that 'invention' without making it public. Consequently, how the hell is it patentable?

nova 14y ago

The world would be better with NO patents. Copyright is more than enough for software, medical research should be directly funded by the goverments (just like weapons manufacturers or big public infrastructures), and the rest just on trade secrets. We are now in a interconnected world, rich with information. Independent reinvention is extremely easy. The risk of some genius taking his great, great, unique discovery to the grave because of the lack of patents is tiny compared with the economic, scientific and technological damage of this constant hemorrhage of time, money and energy that is the patent system. No more insurmountable entry barriers for entrepreneurs, no more monopolies, no more trolls, no more unnecessary roundabouts to avoid using obvious patents. The only one to lose would be the patent lawyers. Forget the romantic fairy tale of the poor lonely inventor robbed of his great idea by big business. Using patents in court is extremely expensive, he couldn't afford them anyway. Patents are guns for big guys. And no mention to the goodness of the free market. Patents are government-granted monopolies. You couldn't be furthest from a free, competitive model of an economy. Patents are not capitalism, they resemble more some feudal privilege taken from the middle ages.

Tycho 14y ago
What if you wanted to conduct medical research but the government wasn't interested in funding you?