3 ms·

It totally depends on the field. In software, perhaps this would work nicely, because rapid iteration and expansion prevails. That said, in the pharmaceutical

It totally depends on the field. In software, perhaps this would work nicely, because rapid iteration and expansion prevails. That said, in the pharmaceutical or material science worlds, the cost and pace of research require that protection be afforded to those who choose to invest and disclose the fruits of their labor to the world. It's not so black and white that there are no incentives for disclosed innovation, but patents are a big booster in some areas, for good reasons.

toasterlovin 14y ago
There was plenty of invention before patents existed as a legal concept. Patents exist because some people who came up with clever ideas thought (properly) that it was in their best interest to be granted a legal monopoly on the implementation of their ideas and lobbied lawmakers to grant them these monopolies. Patents did not come into being because we, as a society (speaking as an American), determined that our pace of innovation was too slow and decided that we needed to do something about it. This idea, that patents encourage innovation, is the justification, not the motivation, for the legal construct that is the patent. There were no experiments done to test this hypothesis. In fact, I think the history of invention before patents suggests quite strongly that they are not needed; that, in fact, people will invent simply because we are tool builders and tinkerers. EDIT: To testify to the fact that people invented before patents: http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2011/12/machine-power.html http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2011/12/machine-power.html A book from 1606 showing illustrations of gear and hydraulic powered devices. Some are fanciful, others less so, but they all clearly show humankind figuring out every last way to apply a technology to the tasks of every day life.
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  Have you researched the history of patents? I'm no expert, but my understanding is that they were established in response to the guild system, in which a lot of technical knowledge was kept secret. Invention may have been occurring, but it didn't benefit the larger society the way it could have.
  - toasterlovin 14y ago
    As far as I am aware, there is no compulsory license in the United States patent system, so while patents aren't more restrictive of the _spread_ of technical knowledge, they certainly could prevent the _use_ of technical knowledge. So, like, what's the point? Seems like a lacking solution to the problem you propose. Also, I am skeptical that guilds were historically the major impediment to the spread of technical knowledge. After all, once ideas are lodged in your mind, nobody can unlodge them, whether by force or persuasion, not even your own self. I would look instead to the historically enormously high cost of travel and book printing. Since people and books are the carriers of ideas (historically, at least; now we have the Internet), this seems like a more direct explanation.
  - belorn 14y ago
    One legal theory behind patents is that they were a tool to incentivize immigration. It benefited the United States even before it was the United States, as people was encouraging to stay in the country during the duration of exclusivity, and gave the country a working model of the invention so people could learn. Before patents, many invention was treated as city or state secret. I can recommend a very interesting talk by Professor Eben Moglen, who teach law history and actually read discussions that happened between the people who wrote and worked with the first implementation of the US patent law (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPzpBn-XGxw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPzpBn-XGxw).
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

toasterlovin 14y ago

There was plenty of invention before patents existed as a legal concept. Patents exist because some people who came up with clever ideas thought (properly) that it was in their best interest to be granted a legal monopoly on the implementation of their ideas and lobbied lawmakers to grant them these monopolies. Patents did not come into being because we, as a society (speaking as an American), determined that our pace of innovation was too slow and decided that we needed to do something about it. This idea, that patents encourage innovation, is the justification, not the motivation, for the legal construct that is the patent. There were no experiments done to test this hypothesis. In fact, I think the history of invention before patents suggests quite strongly that they are not needed; that, in fact, people will invent simply because we are tool builders and tinkerers. EDIT: To testify to the fact that people invented before patents: http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2011/12/machine-power.html http://bibliodyssey.blogspot.com/2011/12/machine-power.html A book from 1606 showing illustrations of gear and hydraulic powered devices. Some are fanciful, others less so, but they all clearly show humankind figuring out every last way to apply a technology to the tasks of every day life.

ScottBurson 14y ago
Have you researched the history of patents? I'm no expert, but my understanding is that they were established in response to the guild system, in which a lot of technical knowledge was kept secret. Invention may have been occurring, but it didn't benefit the larger society the way it could have.
- toasterlovin 14y ago
  As far as I am aware, there is no compulsory license in the United States patent system, so while patents aren't more restrictive of the _spread_ of technical knowledge, they certainly could prevent the _use_ of technical knowledge. So, like, what's the point? Seems like a lacking solution to the problem you propose. Also, I am skeptical that guilds were historically the major impediment to the spread of technical knowledge. After all, once ideas are lodged in your mind, nobody can unlodge them, whether by force or persuasion, not even your own self. I would look instead to the historically enormously high cost of travel and book printing. Since people and books are the carriers of ideas (historically, at least; now we have the Internet), this seems like a more direct explanation.
- belorn 14y ago
  One legal theory behind patents is that they were a tool to incentivize immigration. It benefited the United States even before it was the United States, as people was encouraging to stay in the country during the duration of exclusivity, and gave the country a working model of the invention so people could learn. Before patents, many invention was treated as city or state secret. I can recommend a very interesting talk by Professor Eben Moglen, who teach law history and actually read discussions that happened between the people who wrote and worked with the first implementation of the US patent law (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPzpBn-XGxw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPzpBn-XGxw).
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]