3 ms·

Patents are a fine idea in principle. There's little doubt that they promote innovation in pharmaceuticals, for example. The problem arises when the patents la

Patents are a fine idea in principle. There's little doubt that they promote innovation in pharmaceuticals, for example. The problem arises when the patents last much longer than the "innovation cycle" in an industry. As software takes over the world, we're seeing cycle times go down in many fields, but patent laws aren't keeping up with technological reality.

_delirium 13y ago
Yes, shorter patents would address a decent number of the issues. To pick one area I'm somewhat familiar with, a lot of the patents in digital-audio synthesis were initially reasonable, in my opinion. Furthermore, the system largely "worked" as it was supposed to to incentivize innovation and ensure that commercializers of technology paid some royalties to those developing it. A research group like Stanford's CCRMA would develop a new synthesis method, patent it, and license the patent to a commercializer such as Yamaha, who put it in their synthesizers and paid a royalty. Without patents, there would be a strong incentive to do this monetization via keeping things secret instead, rather than openly publishing them somewhere that Yamaha could just read. The part where it starts seeming unreasonable is when a 15-year-old synthesis method, which is by that time ancient and textbook-standard material, is still patented.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  20 year doesn't seem like such an awful term for a patent. You think 15 years is too long, no doubt there are other people who thin 10 or 5 are too long, just as there must be some people who think it should be 25 or 30 years. I feel like 20 years has stuck because it's approximately the length of one human generation.
  - lugg 13y ago
    What on earth gives you the idea that a generation is a good measure of time for a monopoly? Patents are intended to promote innovation for society not give protection to a racket. The only reason to give people a monopoly on production is to allow those who invested in the invention and research to reimburse the costs of research and development to allow for further investment in innovation. After the time period the patent / copy rights should be released to the public domain so that everyone may benefit from cheap economy of scale production. The only reason I could think you feel this way is that it is all you've known. In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation.
    - _delirium 13y ago
      In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation. One tricky issue is also the lead time to market. In the synthesis example, Yamaha came out with a synth within ~2 years of licensing the patent. But in some areas (like medicine) it can be common for it to take 5-10 years for a product to come out, in which case a 5-year patent would be worthless, because it would expire before you can sell anything.
      - lugg 13y ago
        Sorry I should have probably continued on, there was a bit of an implication here: In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation [and how long it takes to reap the return on that investment].
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I think a generation had stuck because that suits enough people's ideas of what's acceptable while hitting some sort of median in product development and investment returns. Not all inventions even show an immediate profit. It seems to me that you want it to be less for your convenience, and no other factor.
briantakita 13y ago
> There's little doubt that they promote innovation in pharmaceuticals Are there studies that back up your claim? Or is this propaganda from the entrenched powers? There are studies that show patents slow down & harm innovation. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/do-patents-encourage-or-hinder-innovation-the-case-of-the-steam-engine http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/do-patents-encourage-o... Indeed, patents are good for the lawyers & entrenched players. That doesn't sound innovative to me.

_delirium 13y ago

Yes, shorter patents would address a decent number of the issues. To pick one area I'm somewhat familiar with, a lot of the patents in digital-audio synthesis were initially reasonable, in my opinion. Furthermore, the system largely "worked" as it was supposed to to incentivize innovation and ensure that commercializers of technology paid some royalties to those developing it. A research group like Stanford's CCRMA would develop a new synthesis method, patent it, and license the patent to a commercializer such as Yamaha, who put it in their synthesizers and paid a royalty. Without patents, there would be a strong incentive to do this monetization via keeping things secret instead, rather than openly publishing them somewhere that Yamaha could just read. The part where it starts seeming unreasonable is when a 15-year-old synthesis method, which is by that time ancient and textbook-standard material, is still patented.

anigbrowl 13y ago
20 year doesn't seem like such an awful term for a patent. You think 15 years is too long, no doubt there are other people who thin 10 or 5 are too long, just as there must be some people who think it should be 25 or 30 years. I feel like 20 years has stuck because it's approximately the length of one human generation.
- lugg 13y ago
  What on earth gives you the idea that a generation is a good measure of time for a monopoly? Patents are intended to promote innovation for society not give protection to a racket. The only reason to give people a monopoly on production is to allow those who invested in the invention and research to reimburse the costs of research and development to allow for further investment in innovation. After the time period the patent / copy rights should be released to the public domain so that everyone may benefit from cheap economy of scale production. The only reason I could think you feel this way is that it is all you've known. In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation. One tricky issue is also the lead time to market. In the synthesis example, Yamaha came out with a synth within ~2 years of licensing the patent. But in some areas (like medicine) it can be common for it to take 5-10 years for a product to come out, in which case a 5-year patent would be worthless, because it would expire before you can sell anything.
    - lugg 13y ago
      Sorry I should have probably continued on, there was a bit of an implication here: In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation [and how long it takes to reap the return on that investment].
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I think a generation had stuck because that suits enough people's ideas of what's acceptable while hitting some sort of median in product development and investment returns. Not all inventions even show an immediate profit. It seems to me that you want it to be less for your convenience, and no other factor.

briantakita 13y ago

> There's little doubt that they promote innovation in pharmaceuticals Are there studies that back up your claim? Or is this propaganda from the entrenched powers? There are studies that show patents slow down & harm innovation. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/do-patents-encourage-or-hinder-innovation-the-case-of-the-steam-engine http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/do-patents-encourage-o... Indeed, patents are good for the lawyers & entrenched players. That doesn't sound innovative to me.