3 ms·

The patent system as implemented may be idiotic. In principle, I don't see a problem with granting someone a temporary monopoly for monetizing discoveries that

The patent system as implemented may be idiotic. In principle, I don't see a problem with granting someone a temporary monopoly for monetizing discoveries that came about as the result of long and difficult work. Society is almost certainly better off if the patent system causes discoveries to be made sooner than when the patent was granted plus the length of the patent term. I'm torn on the gene patent though.One the one hand, a gene is a non-obvious mathematical formalism that offers an explanatory account of heredity. So we don't really have genes in our bodies and any arguments relying on such a claim are dubious. Furthermore, patents do have research exemptions. Now, my intuitions tell me such a patent is wrong but I'd really like to see a solid supportive argument.

kiba 17y ago
How would you presume to measure the impact of patents? How do you know which patents should be granted or not granted? The benefit is for whom? What about the inventors that got left behind because the other inventors got to monopolized his invention first? He didn't have a chance to try to put it on the market. The problem is that the patent system cannot possibly account for all the impacts of the patents that affected the economy. The economy is a chaostic complex entity composed of many million of human beings making trillion of decision on the daily basis on what to buy and sell. The free market is astoudingly complex. You have the audacity to think that you can improve the economy by imposing a monopoly on that one lucky inventor. You have no idea the unseen consequences that would result from your actions. Inventions never created, resource never allocated, and customers unsatisfied. The whole of history that we never knew changed forever by the course of a single patent. Economic history is awashed with pirates producing books and making the authors rich, fortune ruined by patent ligitation, and untold stories of opportunistic inventors exploiting connections to widen their monopolies. Interventionism in the free market is never without its cost. You would bet very well that the law of unintended consequences applied to the patent system as much as stupid laws mandating the price of gasolines.
flashgordon 17y ago
its ok to grant a temporary monopoly. yes. But what is not obvious is that the duration of 8 years (and 20 for a more extensive protection) is way way too long for software patents. Most software patents (especially these days) are blatantly obvious and yet granted. What is not taken into account when a patent in granted (again i can only talk of software) is how much "effort"is required to come up with the idea (or rather the method of implementing the idea). Id say any more than 2 years is being too generous and enough to stiffle innovation.
bbgm 17y ago
There's a great paper from about a couple of years ago that dives deep into what a gene is and provides historical context. As you'll see, the definition of a genes as being an explanation for heredity is somewhat dated. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full I do like the definition in that article "The gene is a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products." Personally I've always had issues with the idea of patenting basic biology, and genes are fundamental biology of a species, since no one manufactures genomic sequences. How that biology can be controlled, modified and used for all kinds of purposes is a different story. I would also argue that patents break down completely in modern science, where there is too much complexity for any one organization or people to control what you can do. It hampers science, it hampers innovation, perhaps even to a degree that it's harming human health. This from someone who believes pharma companies should get more control over their patents with the caveat that "me too" drugs should be thrown out once an extended patent period is in place.
anamax 17y ago
> In principle, I don't see a problem with granting someone a temporary monopoly for monetizing discoveries that came about as the result of long and difficult work. Why does the amount of work matter? Me, I don't care where the ideas come from or how much work the person did. I want them disclosed. Then again - I'm on the greed side of envy vs greed. I want everyone out their working as hard as they can to make my life better. To help them with that task, they need information, aka disclosure. To encourage them, I want other people to pay them lots of money.

kiba 17y ago

How would you presume to measure the impact of patents? How do you know which patents should be granted or not granted? The benefit is for whom? What about the inventors that got left behind because the other inventors got to monopolized his invention first? He didn't have a chance to try to put it on the market. The problem is that the patent system cannot possibly account for all the impacts of the patents that affected the economy. The economy is a chaostic complex entity composed of many million of human beings making trillion of decision on the daily basis on what to buy and sell. The free market is astoudingly complex. You have the audacity to think that you can improve the economy by imposing a monopoly on that one lucky inventor. You have no idea the unseen consequences that would result from your actions. Inventions never created, resource never allocated, and customers unsatisfied. The whole of history that we never knew changed forever by the course of a single patent. Economic history is awashed with pirates producing books and making the authors rich, fortune ruined by patent ligitation, and untold stories of opportunistic inventors exploiting connections to widen their monopolies. Interventionism in the free market is never without its cost. You would bet very well that the law of unintended consequences applied to the patent system as much as stupid laws mandating the price of gasolines.

flashgordon 17y ago

its ok to grant a temporary monopoly. yes. But what is not obvious is that the duration of 8 years (and 20 for a more extensive protection) is way way too long for software patents. Most software patents (especially these days) are blatantly obvious and yet granted. What is not taken into account when a patent in granted (again i can only talk of software) is how much "effort"is required to come up with the idea (or rather the method of implementing the idea). Id say any more than 2 years is being too generous and enough to stiffle innovation.

bbgm 17y ago

There's a great paper from about a couple of years ago that dives deep into what a gene is and provides historical context. As you'll see, the definition of a genes as being an explanation for heredity is somewhat dated. http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/669.full I do like the definition in that article "The gene is a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products." Personally I've always had issues with the idea of patenting basic biology, and genes are fundamental biology of a species, since no one manufactures genomic sequences. How that biology can be controlled, modified and used for all kinds of purposes is a different story. I would also argue that patents break down completely in modern science, where there is too much complexity for any one organization or people to control what you can do. It hampers science, it hampers innovation, perhaps even to a degree that it's harming human health. This from someone who believes pharma companies should get more control over their patents with the caveat that "me too" drugs should be thrown out once an extended patent period is in place.

anamax 17y ago

> In principle, I don't see a problem with granting someone a temporary monopoly for monetizing discoveries that came about as the result of long and difficult work. Why does the amount of work matter? Me, I don't care where the ideas come from or how much work the person did. I want them disclosed. Then again - I'm on the greed side of envy vs greed. I want everyone out their working as hard as they can to make my life better. To help them with that task, they need information, aka disclosure. To encourage them, I want other people to pay them lots of money.