3 ms·

But patents aren't a solution, the free rider phenomenon is called progress - not a problem, and by legal you mean you're on the side that does it. Of course i

by wnight 13y ago

But patents aren't a solution, the free rider phenomenon is called progress - not a problem, and by legal you mean you're on the side that does it. Of course it's profitable though, to declare other peoples' ideas to be your property, so if that's the metric it's a great success. The big picture is always the same. > Judges have no stake in looking clever either--unlike academics there is no publish or perish. Nearly all judges have stake in is looking clever. Being cited. You pointed out their lack of direct stake. As for kludges, yes. Exactly. You rabidly avoid implementing a kludge for fear of supporting it forever and in doing so invariably produced worse solution and gotten less work done than if you'd focused on the goal instead of the details. Everyone has probably been there. Patents are a hack to keep 'useful' companies afloat and reward 'real' inventors. I see the perceived needs for those, and might even agree, but using patents is like trying to fly with bricks and when it fails deciding you need more bricks.

rayiner 13y ago
> the free rider phenomenon is called progress - not a problem In neo-classical economics, the free rider phenomenon is definitely a problem, not "progress." It is something that undermines economic efficiency. Now, you can argue that it's not something that actually manifests in reality, and maybe you're right about that, maybe you're wrong. But I'm not presenting my worldview here, I'm explaining the intellectual context in which the existing patent regime has arisen. There are people who think of "sharing" as being conducive to economic well-being. That's not the neo-classical worldview. That worldview is, to a first approximation, trying to figure out how to turn everything into property so it can be bought and sold. Buying and selling is seen as conducive to economic well-being. > Nearly all judges have stake in is looking clever. Being cited. "Being cited" is not really a thing that judges strive for.
- wnight 13y ago
  Do you know what really destroys economic efficiency? Well-meaning people handing out monopolies to things they don't understand and then creating laws, agencies, courts, and breeding specialized lawyers to navigate the mess - all taken from actual inventors. > Buying and selling is seen as conducive to economic well-being. Oh gosh no. Buying and selling might not work to your benefit. Far better to be the guy who labels everything for sale and sells it. Absolutely zero risk. Which is why patents are a dream. Further, that reasoning (make things property to stimulate the economy) is as obviously broken as breaking windows for economic growth. It only works in the short term while there's stuff to stick a price tag on, and it's only wildly profitable when it's other people's stuff.

by wnight 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

> the free rider phenomenon is called progress - not a problem In neo-classical economics, the free rider phenomenon is definitely a problem, not "progress." It is something that undermines economic efficiency. Now, you can argue that it's not something that actually manifests in reality, and maybe you're right about that, maybe you're wrong. But I'm not presenting my worldview here, I'm explaining the intellectual context in which the existing patent regime has arisen. There are people who think of "sharing" as being conducive to economic well-being. That's not the neo-classical worldview. That worldview is, to a first approximation, trying to figure out how to turn everything into property so it can be bought and sold. Buying and selling is seen as conducive to economic well-being. > Nearly all judges have stake in is looking clever. Being cited. "Being cited" is not really a thing that judges strive for.

wnight 13y ago
Do you know what really destroys economic efficiency? Well-meaning people handing out monopolies to things they don't understand and then creating laws, agencies, courts, and breeding specialized lawyers to navigate the mess - all taken from actual inventors. > Buying and selling is seen as conducive to economic well-being. Oh gosh no. Buying and selling might not work to your benefit. Far better to be the guy who labels everything for sale and sells it. Absolutely zero risk. Which is why patents are a dream. Further, that reasoning (make things property to stimulate the economy) is as obviously broken as breaking windows for economic growth. It only works in the short term while there's stuff to stick a price tag on, and it's only wildly profitable when it's other people's stuff.