6 ms·
People seem to buy this idea of patents on FUD: "No one will invent things if they can't have a monopoly on their invention." But is that the case in reality? I
by ahallock 12y ago
People seem to buy this idea of patents on FUD: "No one will invent things if they can't have a monopoly on their invention." But is that the case in reality? I'd like to see some empirical evidence that the amount of inventions goes down critically without patents.
Even if the number of inventions went down, there are always upsides. Less time and money wasted on litigation and better products for consumers.
- Guvante 12y agoIIRC without patents you have trade secrets, patents ensure the details are more widely known (in theory).
- Karunamon 12y agoThe same FUD applies to copyright - the sheer amount of free (as in speech) artwork out there handily disproves the "no one will do things" argument.
- rhino369 12y agoSome types of work would definitely survive in a copyright free universe. But many wouldn't. You wouldn't have full time authors. Musicians would mercilessly rip off each others songs. Forget about tv, high budget video games, movies, etc. That stuff takes serious investment to make.
- mehrzad 12y ago>Musicians would mercilessly rip off each others songs. This is a ridiculous claim. DIY and free music culture has made a lot of unique stuff. Have you heard of the band "Bomb the Music Industry!"? That was their whole thing. Musicians already copy each other in general, but the problem would not get worse.
- rhino369 12y agoThere is already a lot of ripping off going on in music, having no consequences would exacerbate the situation.
- rhino369 12y agoPharmaceuticals are the classic example of why patents are necessary. Billions of R&D to develop a product that can be produced by a competitor for pennies. But things like complex circuits would see drastic reduction in R&D if competitors could just make a copy. You'd save money on litigation, but it's not that much considering the size of the industries at play. And you'd probably see worse products after the short term.
- bcg1 12y agoIndustry-specific concerns like that could easily be addressed privately by trade associations that have incentive to prevent the sort of mutually assured destruction that you describe.
- rhino369 12y agoYou mean by creating an agreement to not compete? That is illegal. It effects all industries that have R&D, those are just good examples.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- Karunamon 12y agoWe're discussing overhauls to the legal system - the fact that it's illegal now doesn't enter into it.
- rhino369 12y agoI'll put it another way, it would be stupid to let entire industries write their own non-competition agreements. That is monopolist behavior. Unless the repeal of the Patent Act coincides with the repeal of the Sherman Act, it would be illegal still.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- throwawaykf05 12y agoThere are tons of empirical studies showing the effects, good and bad, of patent systems using historical as well as more recent data. For instance studies of historical fairs have shown that the introduction of a patent system greatly increased the rate of innovation in fields where other protection was not previously available. On the other hand there are studies showing that patent tickets in some industries caused slowdowns in progress. There is significant evidence of various benefits and costs. The problem is, these pros and cons are not directly comparable so nobody can say one outweighs the other.