4 ms·

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

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.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  Interesting that you should mention the case of Watt holding up steam, because this paper pretty conclusively shows it to be a myth: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 Same goes for the other popular myth that the Wright patent stunted the aircraft industry in the US circa WW1: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 The problem is that we don't hear of these stories and my guess is because, well, they don't fit the narrative the media is trying to sell these days. As for a fear of creating a product due to patents, I'm not sure this is a widespread phenomenon. Of course, my sample is extremely small and this is anecdotal, but all the people I know doing their own startups are either indifferent to, or actually bullish on, patents. Some are even filing their own. And at least one is operating in a market that I know is rife with patents (e-Books). And this is why we need more empirical studies, because anecdotes and experiences don't add up to data. But it's not an easy topic, given that even the basic concept of "innovation" is hard to define and almost impossible to measure.
  - briantakita 12y ago
    > Interesting that you should mention the case of Watt holding up steam, because this paper pretty conclusively shows it to be a myth: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 Detailed & convoluted, yes. Conclusive, no. It is interesting that engines dramatically improved after these patents expired. Another thing that the "Strong Steam, Weak Patents, or, the Myth of Watt‟s Innovation-Blocking Monopoly, Exploded*" paper detailed was the extraordinary effort that the inventors spent on the legal process. Wouldn't their energy be best served on their core competency, which is invention? Wouldn't society benefit more from inventors inventing instead of dealing with legal issues? I've heard of stories where inventors spent years bitterly defending their patents. Patent bring innovation into the domain of the legal profession & business administration. Innovation, in it's purest form, is in the domain of the creator (inventor). > As for a fear of creating a product due to patents, I'm not sure this is a widespread phenomenon. Having to hire a patent attorney counts as fear. It's certainly an expense & extra administration to creating an innovative product. I've never seen a programmer, or engineer, peruse the patent database to find ideas on solving the problem. Most of the time, the problem is identified, and solutions are proposed & explored. The fear of being litigated preventing you from creating is akin to the fear of killed in a car accident preventing you seeing your family. We still proceed, but we make every effort to make driving as safe as possible. Ideally, driving would be 100% safe. Ideally, creating would be 100% safe from litigation. > Of course, my sample is extremely small and this is anecdotal, but all the people I know doing their own startups are either indifferent to, or actually bullish on, patents. I also work with startups that have patents. It's almost a requirement to have a patent for "defensibility". If this requirement went away, the game would change. I suspect, more emphasis would be put on how well the organization can execute & innovate. > And this is why we need more empirical studies, because anecdotes and experiences don't add up to data. It's good to have both. Sometimes studies can be an exercise of local optimization at the expense of global optimization. Anecdotes are a great way to disseminating wisdom to take action. > But it's not an easy topic, given that even the basic concept of "innovation" is hard to define and almost impossible to measure. Agreed. That's why it's usually better to err on the side of simplicity. Facts are less obfuscated and the waters are less muddied. I personally think novelty, untied to economic output, is a better measure. Novelty is easier to define & it is more difficult to redefine by parties interested in promoting an agenda. --- As a whole, there are only analogous environments and motivations. As a creator, I favor independence. I don't want large amounts of capital & business administration to be a requirement for me to make a living creating things. I want autonomy without having to spending my time in court. I want to have the freedom to create derivative works. I want to have the freedom to invent without having to get a patent or making sure I don't infringe on somebody's patent. If someone create a derivative work from my work, then I'm happy. I trust that collaborative environments with such a feedback loop creates more global innovation.

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.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
Interesting that you should mention the case of Watt holding up steam, because this paper pretty conclusively shows it to be a myth: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 Same goes for the other popular myth that the Wright patent stunted the aircraft industry in the US circa WW1: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2355673 The problem is that we don't hear of these stories and my guess is because, well, they don't fit the narrative the media is trying to sell these days. As for a fear of creating a product due to patents, I'm not sure this is a widespread phenomenon. Of course, my sample is extremely small and this is anecdotal, but all the people I know doing their own startups are either indifferent to, or actually bullish on, patents. Some are even filing their own. And at least one is operating in a market that I know is rife with patents (e-Books). And this is why we need more empirical studies, because anecdotes and experiences don't add up to data. But it's not an easy topic, given that even the basic concept of "innovation" is hard to define and almost impossible to measure.
- briantakita 12y ago
  > Interesting that you should mention the case of Watt holding up steam, because this paper pretty conclusively shows it to be a myth: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712 Detailed & convoluted, yes. Conclusive, no. It is interesting that engines dramatically improved after these patents expired. Another thing that the "Strong Steam, Weak Patents, or, the Myth of Watt‟s Innovation-Blocking Monopoly, Exploded*" paper detailed was the extraordinary effort that the inventors spent on the legal process. Wouldn't their energy be best served on their core competency, which is invention? Wouldn't society benefit more from inventors inventing instead of dealing with legal issues? I've heard of stories where inventors spent years bitterly defending their patents. Patent bring innovation into the domain of the legal profession & business administration. Innovation, in it's purest form, is in the domain of the creator (inventor). > As for a fear of creating a product due to patents, I'm not sure this is a widespread phenomenon. Having to hire a patent attorney counts as fear. It's certainly an expense & extra administration to creating an innovative product. I've never seen a programmer, or engineer, peruse the patent database to find ideas on solving the problem. Most of the time, the problem is identified, and solutions are proposed & explored. The fear of being litigated preventing you from creating is akin to the fear of killed in a car accident preventing you seeing your family. We still proceed, but we make every effort to make driving as safe as possible. Ideally, driving would be 100% safe. Ideally, creating would be 100% safe from litigation. > Of course, my sample is extremely small and this is anecdotal, but all the people I know doing their own startups are either indifferent to, or actually bullish on, patents. I also work with startups that have patents. It's almost a requirement to have a patent for "defensibility". If this requirement went away, the game would change. I suspect, more emphasis would be put on how well the organization can execute & innovate. > And this is why we need more empirical studies, because anecdotes and experiences don't add up to data. It's good to have both. Sometimes studies can be an exercise of local optimization at the expense of global optimization. Anecdotes are a great way to disseminating wisdom to take action. > But it's not an easy topic, given that even the basic concept of "innovation" is hard to define and almost impossible to measure. Agreed. That's why it's usually better to err on the side of simplicity. Facts are less obfuscated and the waters are less muddied. I personally think novelty, untied to economic output, is a better measure. Novelty is easier to define & it is more difficult to redefine by parties interested in promoting an agenda. --- As a whole, there are only analogous environments and motivations. As a creator, I favor independence. I don't want large amounts of capital & business administration to be a requirement for me to make a living creating things. I want autonomy without having to spending my time in court. I want to have the freedom to create derivative works. I want to have the freedom to invent without having to get a patent or making sure I don't infringe on somebody's patent. If someone create a derivative work from my work, then I'm happy. I trust that collaborative environments with such a feedback loop creates more global innovation.