4 ms·
Note that without patent protection, there would be little incentive for these companies' research labs to continue to improve their bulbs, because doing so wou
by javert 12y ago
Note that without patent protection, there would be little incentive for these companies' research labs to continue to improve their bulbs, because doing so would not give any competitive advantage, while it would cost money in research and development.
e.g.
> It was rendered superfluous when in 1906 two European companies introduced a superior lightbulb whose filament was made from tungsten paste. That bulb was itself eclipsed in 1911 by General Electric’s metal-filament bulb, which used pure drawn tungsten wire, and in 1913 by GE’s gas-filled tungsten bulb.
It's better to have a technology available and have a choice to pay slightly more or to stay with the prior technology, as opposed to not having a technology available at all. That's why we have patents.
- cromwellian 12y agoPeople invent and invest in the absence of patents. That justification is getting rather tired.
- seanflyon 12y ago> People invent and invest in the absence of patents I don't think that this is established. Patents have existed since the 1400's and areas that have patent systems have general out-innovated areas without them. This could be the result of many other factors, but patents do clearly provide an incentive to innovate. I think a better argument is that the added costs of dealing with patent trolls outweighs the incentive of a temporary monopoly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
- derekp7 12y agoLogically, it can also have the opposite effect. If you have all the rights for a product, you have no incentive to improve it, until the patents are about to expire.
- CamperBob2 12y agoMy favorite example is the Roomba. Cool new vacuum cleaner invented, ridiculously broad/abstract patents filed... result, near zero progress for 20 years.
- rhino369 12y agoPatents don't give you rights to a product. Only a certain implementation of one. Your competitors will patent improved versions if you don't. They might also invent a product using a new implementation leaving you with no market. And in practice, it doesn't work that way. Companies acquire patents on each minor upgrade to their technology.
- vidarh 12y agoYour competitors won't exist if your basic patents are broad enough to deny them access to the market.
- derekp7 12y agoI was thinking more along the lines of competitors who are in the same space as you (let's say, light bulb manufactures) -- you patent a new type of bulb, your competitors could patent a bunch of improvements on it to deny you future market on improved versions.
- nitrogen 12y agoPatents have existed since the 1400's and areas that have patent systems have general out-innovated areas without them. Has the direction of causality been established here? Maybe areas with more innovation sprout wannabe monopolists who manage to lobby their governments to create patent protections.
- seanflyon 12y ago> Has the direction of causality been established here? Immediately after the sentence you quote is the answer to your question: "This could be the result of many other factors" The other factor you suggest is certainly plausible.
- javert 12y ago"I'm tired of hearing your argument" is not a valid counter to an argument.