7 ms·

There is no evidence that patents help innovation in any industry. There is evidence that patents harm innovation. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-pate

There is no evidence that patents help innovation in any industry. There is evidence that patents harm innovation. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promote-innovation/id=48768/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promot... http://archive.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/ http://archive.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-paten... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0303448024.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100203/0303448024.shtml > Regularly, patent advocates tell me how important patents are for the biotech and life science industries. However, there apparently is academic research in the works that shows that patents actually slow down innovation in biotech. The specific example we discussed was that there is increasing evidence that when a professor or company gets a patent in the field of genetics research, other researchers simply stop doing work in that specific area. As a result, the number of researchers on a particular topic decreases, especially if the patent is broad. It's not hard to theorize that this results in less innovation around this area over time. The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Instead, it is designed to enable entrenched players & the government to control innovation. This means, they can control the market & by adding legal barriers to competition. It's similar to how the mafia carves out territories. If you go into someone's ip territory, you will get the shakedown or whacked. The way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents, as patents are holding us all back. However, that would mean removing a branch of government & a slew of other people who's livelihoods would be taken away. Unfortunately, the structures in place will prevent such reform. Another way to have true patent reform is to effectively make patents obsolete. That is why DIY culture & black markets are "dangerous" & necessary ideas. Patents facilitate the transfer of wealth & energy from the creators to the administrators, enforcers, & holders of capital. Is that how we want our civilization to evolve?

kanzure 12y ago
> The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Hardly designed at all. The modern patent system goes to the 1600s when some boring king made some annoying promises that he had to compromise on: By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s].... above quote background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law and specifically http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20the%201624%20Statute%20of%20Monopolies%20as%20political%20compromise.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20... > The way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents That is an interesting idea, but I can't think of a way to make that work. Alternatively, I wrote a proposal where patents are divorced from science and technology, so that entrenched interests still have something: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb0/jD_TZ8U47b4J https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Entrenched interests are owed NOTHING. They are enjoying a government-granted monopoly that is entirely unfair and demonstrably harming innovation. The only way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents.
throwawaykf05 12y ago
Your first link (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promote-innovation/id=48768/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promot...) is actually chock full of links to studies that show exactly the opposite of your first two sentences. Which is not surprising, considering it's highly unlikely ipwatchdog.com would run an article suggesting anything other than that patents promote innovation. The study in the second mises.org link is actually a simulation rather than anything directly based on empirical data, and I tend to trust them less. (Not to mention that the mises.org link also lists studies that present a more nuanced view of patents.) I didn't bother clicking on the techdirt link. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of studies about patents and innovation out there, and the reality is that the picture is very nuanced. For a meta-study, see "Recent Research on the Economics of Patents", Bronwyn H. Hall, Dietmar Harhoff, (Google for pdf). My takeaway is that any simplistic claim that "patents harm innovation" or "patents promote innovation" is likely wrong.
- briantakita 12y ago
  Thank you for your amiable correction on the link. I took the first three Google results. The comments in the ipwatchdog article are interesting. > My company is 3 years old. We have taken nothing from them, or anyone else. We launched our products to avoid them and their infringement zeal. Our products are innovative, less costly, and preferred in the market. As our market penetration has increased, they have been busy reworking their patents (by flooding the US Patent Office with new documents and revision requests) with the aim of shaking us (and any other new competitors) down. So, we are faced with terrible choices. We can fight in court to prove our case – at a cost of $2 million or more, or we can pay them unearned royalties. In either case we are losers in this scenario. The hospitality industry also continues to lose. > As for now, you are right, you are faced with terrible choices. But did you do any kind of evaluation to determine whether you would be infringing any patents? My guess is you did not. I’d also be interested in knowing whether you have patent infringement insurance to cover your defense costs? My guess is you don’t have that either. If it is the case, as it usually is, that you did not engage in any kind of research in advance of launching your product and you do not have patent infringement insurance it would seem that your poor business choices are what has put you in this position rather than any defect in the patent system. The patent system is operating exactly as designed. Ouch. Spoken like a true lawyer. That is when he hands over the business card to the poor business owner. I'd love there to be a study on the costs associated with having to conduct a "proper" prior art search & the number of companies that do not pursue development because another company has developed "prior art". Ultimately, this is the cost of the patent system that is borne by society at large & the entrant company. --- Here's a case study of the steam engine. 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... Studies aside, there seems to be a disagreement over the term "innovation". > My takeaway is that any simplistic claim that "patents harm innovation" or "patents promote innovation" is likely wrong. I can buy that. My suspicion, based on the climate of fear of creating a product, leads me to conclude that patents are not useful. I can conceive of scenarios that patents are useful. However, I can also conceive that something less draconian than a patent would also be a useful tool in such circumstances.
Istof 12y ago
it probably at least help innovation from small inventors so that they don't get copied right away by large corporations?
snowwrestler 12y ago
The purpose of the patent system is to allow investment to scale inventions to reach the maximum number of people. As Lincoln said, the patent system "added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things." Discovery and production. If patents did not exist, people would still research a cure for cancer or a better mousetrap. It's rewarding to solve problems, and one could make some money doing it. However without some protected exclusivity to the invention, no company would invest the billions of dollars necessary to achieve regulatory approval, and mass-scale manufacturing, of that cure. It's just too easy for a competitor to swoop in, copy the process, and undersell the first company.

kanzure 12y ago

> The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Hardly designed at all. The modern patent system goes to the 1600s when some boring king made some annoying promises that he had to compromise on: By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s].... above quote background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law and specifically http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20the%201624%20Statute%20of%20Monopolies%20as%20political%20compromise.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20... > The way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents That is an interesting idea, but I can't think of a way to make that work. Alternatively, I wrote a proposal where patents are divorced from science and technology, so that entrenched interests still have something: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb0/jD_TZ8U47b4J https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...

spacemanmatt 12y ago
Entrenched interests are owed NOTHING. They are enjoying a government-granted monopoly that is entirely unfair and demonstrably harming innovation. The only way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents.

throwawaykf05 12y ago

Your first link (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promote-innovation/id=48768/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/04/15/do-patents-truly-promot...) is actually chock full of links to studies that show exactly the opposite of your first two sentences. Which is not surprising, considering it's highly unlikely ipwatchdog.com would run an article suggesting anything other than that patents promote innovation. The study in the second mises.org link is actually a simulation rather than anything directly based on empirical data, and I tend to trust them less. (Not to mention that the mises.org link also lists studies that present a more nuanced view of patents.) I didn't bother clicking on the techdirt link. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of studies about patents and innovation out there, and the reality is that the picture is very nuanced. For a meta-study, see "Recent Research on the Economics of Patents", Bronwyn H. Hall, Dietmar Harhoff, (Google for pdf). My takeaway is that any simplistic claim that "patents harm innovation" or "patents promote innovation" is likely wrong.

briantakita 12y ago
Thank you for your amiable correction on the link. I took the first three Google results. The comments in the ipwatchdog article are interesting. > My company is 3 years old. We have taken nothing from them, or anyone else. We launched our products to avoid them and their infringement zeal. Our products are innovative, less costly, and preferred in the market. As our market penetration has increased, they have been busy reworking their patents (by flooding the US Patent Office with new documents and revision requests) with the aim of shaking us (and any other new competitors) down. So, we are faced with terrible choices. We can fight in court to prove our case – at a cost of $2 million or more, or we can pay them unearned royalties. In either case we are losers in this scenario. The hospitality industry also continues to lose. > As for now, you are right, you are faced with terrible choices. But did you do any kind of evaluation to determine whether you would be infringing any patents? My guess is you did not. I’d also be interested in knowing whether you have patent infringement insurance to cover your defense costs? My guess is you don’t have that either. If it is the case, as it usually is, that you did not engage in any kind of research in advance of launching your product and you do not have patent infringement insurance it would seem that your poor business choices are what has put you in this position rather than any defect in the patent system. The patent system is operating exactly as designed. Ouch. Spoken like a true lawyer. That is when he hands over the business card to the poor business owner. I'd love there to be a study on the costs associated with having to conduct a "proper" prior art search & the number of companies that do not pursue development because another company has developed "prior art". Ultimately, this is the cost of the patent system that is borne by society at large & the entrant company. --- Here's a case study of the steam engine. 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... Studies aside, there seems to be a disagreement over the term "innovation". > My takeaway is that any simplistic claim that "patents harm innovation" or "patents promote innovation" is likely wrong. I can buy that. My suspicion, based on the climate of fear of creating a product, leads me to conclude that patents are not useful. I can conceive of scenarios that patents are useful. However, I can also conceive that something less draconian than a patent would also be a useful tool in such circumstances.

Istof 12y ago

it probably at least help innovation from small inventors so that they don't get copied right away by large corporations?

snowwrestler 12y ago

The purpose of the patent system is to allow investment to scale inventions to reach the maximum number of people. As Lincoln said, the patent system "added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things." Discovery and production. If patents did not exist, people would still research a cure for cancer or a better mousetrap. It's rewarding to solve problems, and one could make some money doing it. However without some protected exclusivity to the invention, no company would invest the billions of dollars necessary to achieve regulatory approval, and mass-scale manufacturing, of that cure. It's just too easy for a competitor to swoop in, copy the process, and undersell the first company.