http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2 … -coop.html
fun read.
I've always been a fan of abolishing the patent system. when it was first explained to me in the fourth grade I asked my teacher if all old people were completely retarded.
I've always expected to suddenly uncover some subtlety of the market, or some functional value in the system... I never have. In fact the more I deal with it, the more I realize it is one of the single greatest failures of our government to date.
What astounds me is that in the past 4 presidential elections, not a single candidate has addressed it.
One of the many reasons I hate politicians is linked directly to their inability to spot OBVIOUS failures that can be easily remedied. Abolishing the patent office would screw a few law firms, which would result ins some outcry sure... but EVERY SINGLE technology and R&D company on the planet would be sharpening their teeth at the mention of it.
It would be GREAT for industry. Everyone knows it... and its not like anyone is being secretive about it. Everyone thinks patents are a bad idea.
WHY THE HELL DO WE STILL HAVE THEM!?!
fun read.
I've always been a fan of abolishing the patent system. when it was first explained to me in the fourth grade I asked my teacher if all old people were completely retarded.
I've always expected to suddenly uncover some subtlety of the market, or some functional value in the system... I never have. In fact the more I deal with it, the more I realize it is one of the single greatest failures of our government to date.
What astounds me is that in the past 4 presidential elections, not a single candidate has addressed it.
One of the many reasons I hate politicians is linked directly to their inability to spot OBVIOUS failures that can be easily remedied. Abolishing the patent office would screw a few law firms, which would result ins some outcry sure... but EVERY SINGLE technology and R&D company on the planet would be sharpening their teeth at the mention of it.
It would be GREAT for industry. Everyone knows it... and its not like anyone is being secretive about it. Everyone thinks patents are a bad idea.
WHY THE HELL DO WE STILL HAVE THEM!?!
fun read.
I've always been a fan of abolishing the fed. when it was first explained to me in the fourth grade I asked my teacher if all old people were completely retarded.
I've always expected to suddenly uncover some subtlety of the market, or some functional value in the system... I never have. In fact the more I deal with it, the more I realize it is one of the single greatest failures of our government to date.
What astounds me is that in the past 4 presidential elections, not a single candidate has addressed it.
One of the many reasons I hate politicians is linked directly to their inability to spot OBVIOUS failures that can be easily remedied. Abolishing the fed would screw a few [...] firms, which would result ins some outcry sure... but EVERY SINGLE [...] company on the planet would be sharpening their teeth at the mention of it.
It would be GREAT for industry. Everyone knows it... and its not like anyone is being secretive about it. Everyone thinks the fed is a bad idea.
WHY THE HELL DO WE STILL HAVE IT!?!
END THE FED, RON PAUL RUUUUUULEZ
lolz... GOLD STANDARD AND STATES RIGHTS!!!! SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS!!!! PUT THE PAGANS BACK IN CHRISTMAS!!! SAVE THE NARWHALS!!!!
Seriously though, patents are fucking stupid. And unconstitutional. And pretty much bad for everyone.
Seriously though, patents are fucking stupid. And unconstitutional. And pretty much bad for everyone.
how are patents a bad idea?
they are necessary for innovation.
they are necessary for innovation.
lol @ lucas
lol @ you
that story doesn't really say anything.
article> On the other, allowing the monopolization of existing ideas taxes the creation of new ones, thereby decreasing the incentive to innovate.
what is that supposed to mean? because only microsoft can sell windows, i am taxed when creating donut-frying machines?
article> Extending IP rights may modestly boost the incentive for innovation, but this positive effect is wiped away by the negative effect of creating monopolies.
we know that monopolies create dead-weight losses, but if abolishing the monopolies also means abolishing the market, then the outcome is even worse. so we need proof that companies will still innovate without patent rights. it is not clear that they will to such a large extent.
article> In fact, some evidence shows that increased protection even decreases innovation. The main finding is that making it easier to get patents increases … patenting!
so some evidence supports the hypothesis. if all of it doesn't support the hypothesis, why should i still believe the hypothesis?
article> Ideas kept under lock and key are much less useful than those that are freely available.
yes, we already know that monopolies create dead-weight losses.
article> To these direct and visible costs other, most likely larger, hidden costs should be added.
yes, we already know that such regulation involves transaction costs.
article> If we got more innovative new products, perhaps it would be worth it. But the evidence shows we do not. We get only more legal fights and more congressional lobbying.
case studies are useless for conclusions. so in this case, patents did not result in innovation. that doesn't lead to the inference that patents do not lead to innovation in all cases.
that article is so bad that it really doesn't deserve any kind of serious discussion. if the authors would provide some empirics, then we could have a real discussion. that article is pure rhetoric.
article> On the other, allowing the monopolization of existing ideas taxes the creation of new ones, thereby decreasing the incentive to innovate.
what is that supposed to mean? because only microsoft can sell windows, i am taxed when creating donut-frying machines?
article> Extending IP rights may modestly boost the incentive for innovation, but this positive effect is wiped away by the negative effect of creating monopolies.
we know that monopolies create dead-weight losses, but if abolishing the monopolies also means abolishing the market, then the outcome is even worse. so we need proof that companies will still innovate without patent rights. it is not clear that they will to such a large extent.
article> In fact, some evidence shows that increased protection even decreases innovation. The main finding is that making it easier to get patents increases … patenting!
so some evidence supports the hypothesis. if all of it doesn't support the hypothesis, why should i still believe the hypothesis?
article> Ideas kept under lock and key are much less useful than those that are freely available.
yes, we already know that monopolies create dead-weight losses.
article> To these direct and visible costs other, most likely larger, hidden costs should be added.
yes, we already know that such regulation involves transaction costs.
article> If we got more innovative new products, perhaps it would be worth it. But the evidence shows we do not. We get only more legal fights and more congressional lobbying.
case studies are useless for conclusions. so in this case, patents did not result in innovation. that doesn't lead to the inference that patents do not lead to innovation in all cases.
that article is so bad that it really doesn't deserve any kind of serious discussion. if the authors would provide some empirics, then we could have a real discussion. that article is pure rhetoric.
> what is that supposed to mean? because only microsoft can sell windows, i am taxed when creating donut-frying machines?
No, more like when inventing ANYTHING ( I know a lot of designers and design engineers ) you end up paying something like 20% mark up at least in licensing "obvious" technology. The sole reason is because you simply can't defend your designs. It's not financially safe to do so. Hell it's not financially sane to patent stuff for a small design firm. It's too freaking expensive to file patents.
In fact, to guard against this sort of legal parasite, large organizations like Microsoft have joined forces with IBM and HP and a few others to simply build a massive collection of Patents they can use to flood any litigation against them. This is how things like IBM patenting "exercising a cat with a laser pointer" came to pass.
The system itself is basically non functional today. Which was the point of referencing Blackberry in the article.
If even large research companies like IBM are having severe issues remaining innovative as a result of the patent office, then smaller innovative forces ( AKA the primary source of radical innovation historically ) simply cannot compete at all. That pretty much is the sum of the statement.
> we know that monopolies create dead-weight losses, but if abolishing the monopolies also means abolishing the market, then the outcome is even worse. so we need proof that companies will still innovate without patent rights. it is not clear that they will to such a large extent.
We're not abolishing the market. Eliminating patents doesn't eliminate the market. If anything it opens up the flood gates to new products filling the market and causing tons and tons of market forces to swirl around amazing new opportunities.
Copyright still exists. Trademarks still exist. All we're talking about eliminating is patents. The concept that someone can own an idea. Which is not only insane and functionally wrong, but sufficiently ineffective that most of the industry is calling for severe reform and suggesting the complete upheaval of the status quo.
The system as it stands today does not work, and as case studies, RIM, INTEL vs AMD, Apple + AT&T, Apple + Samsung, IBM vs SCO vs Novell, Hayes "guard wait'.... the list goes on and on and on.
> so some evidence supports the hypothesis. if all of it doesn't support the hypothesis, why should i still believe the hypothesis?
The point of this article isn't to prove one way or the other, but to suggest that it is something worth further thought ( it's the christian science monitor not the freaking financial times ). We'll never have definite proof that patents can work or cannot work without patents being proven to work... they have not been in fact all evidence to date suggests they don't. We simply are sitting in the dark complaining about the colors of shadows and you are suggesting that well there could be light somewhere in the darkness. Yes, there could be. But unless you can prove there is, we should get the hell out of this cave.
> yes, we already know that monopolies create dead-weight losses.
Not just monopolies. As we saw with RIM, some law firms are finding it very lucrative to buy patents and sit on them. Squatting them so to speak. You can either pay through the nose for them, or more likely they will use them to basically shake down technology and research companies and their customers.
We're talking about an entire industry that's acting as a complete parasite. It gives NOTHING back to anyone and does enormous damage to even very large companies. That's not the sort of "markets" we need to be creating and protecting. Innovative theft is theft all the same. And a lucrative industry that produces no net benefit to anyone is a bunch of thieves.
> case studies are useless for conclusions. so in this case, patents did not result in innovation. that doesn't lead to the inference that patents do not lead to innovation in all cases.
Circular argument. There's no evidence that patents DID result in innovation. And if that's the case then patent legislation is a clear violation of the constitution.
> that article is so bad that it really doesn't deserve any kind of serious discussion. if the authors would provide some empirics, then we could have a real discussion. that article is pure rhetoric.
Actually in this case the burden of proof lies with the patent legislation. If you cannot prove that it does in fact protect innovation, then it is by definition an unconstitutional set of legislation. It must be removed.
They don't have to prove anything, they just have to cast reasonable doubt.
And a hundred plus years of failure, coupled with the recent high profile failures of the patent office paint a pretty clear picture of patents failing to do their job.
If you can't prove patents are innovative, the case studies are more than enough to say that the legislation is in fact a violation of constitutional rights to free market.
It's just that simple.
nny is arguing passionately based on his own theories about the world/his gut and lucas is critiquing a fucking "christian science monitor" article as being pure rhetoric. this discussion is going nowhere. so many long diatribes in the rss feed lately. harshing my mellow.
> They don't have to prove anything, they just have to cast reasonable doubt.
for my scientific belief, i need below a 0.05 probability of a type-ii error. reasonable doubt isn't good enough for me.
for my scientific belief, i need below a 0.05 probability of a type-ii error. reasonable doubt isn't good enough for me.
"Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
If you cannot prove it actually promotes the progress of science and useful arts, and can present anecdotal evidence of it doing quite the opposite, there's really no more discussion. The law is voided.
If you cannot prove it actually promotes the progress of science and useful arts, and can present anecdotal evidence of it doing quite the opposite, there's really no more discussion. The law is voided.
so, by the contrapositive of that statement, you're saying that:
since the law is not voided, patents promote the progress of science and useful arts
(i dropped the part about anecdotal evidence because it's irrelevant)
since the law is not voided, patents promote the progress of science and useful arts
(i dropped the part about anecdotal evidence because it's irrelevant)
>Copyright still exists. Trademarks still exist. All we're talking about eliminating is patents. The concept that someone can own an idea.
A copyright and trademark will not stop someone from recreating your proprietary invention and moving in on your market for you.
>In fact, to guard against this sort of legal parasite, large organizations like Microsoft have joined forces with IBM and HP and a few others to simply build a massive collection of Patents they can use to flood any litigation against them.
Yes, they do have an outrageous amount of patents, but let's say we abolish the patent process today. Joe Blow creates product x and begins to market it. How long do you think it would take Microsoft's or IBM's reverse engineering team to figure it out and crush Joe's company? Joe wouldn't stand a chance and would have zero competitive advantages. To me it's pretty clear cut that we absolutely need this system.
>Hell it's not financially sane to patent stuff for a small design firm. It's too freaking expensive to file patents.
$40,000 for a provisional patent from start to finish with one of the premier patent and trademark firms in New York. Non-provisional is around $500. In addition you can get grants from many organizations to sponsor your patent under SBIR.
A copyright and trademark will not stop someone from recreating your proprietary invention and moving in on your market for you.
>In fact, to guard against this sort of legal parasite, large organizations like Microsoft have joined forces with IBM and HP and a few others to simply build a massive collection of Patents they can use to flood any litigation against them.
Yes, they do have an outrageous amount of patents, but let's say we abolish the patent process today. Joe Blow creates product x and begins to market it. How long do you think it would take Microsoft's or IBM's reverse engineering team to figure it out and crush Joe's company? Joe wouldn't stand a chance and would have zero competitive advantages. To me it's pretty clear cut that we absolutely need this system.
>Hell it's not financially sane to patent stuff for a small design firm. It's too freaking expensive to file patents.
$40,000 for a provisional patent from start to finish with one of the premier patent and trademark firms in New York. Non-provisional is around $500. In addition you can get grants from many organizations to sponsor your patent under SBIR.
> A copyright and trademark will not stop someone from recreating your proprietary invention and moving in on your market for you.
Most lawyers and engineers will tell you, you are better off without patents as a small company. The reason is you will become a target for litigation by larger companies.
Truthfully small companies have no functional defense against a large company stealing their ideas.
They're best hope is that the company stealing their idea will be nice enough not to sue them for using the idea as well.
> Yes, they do have an outrageous amount of patents, but let's say we abolish the patent process today. Joe Blow creates product x and begins to market it. How long do you think it would take Microsoft's or IBM's reverse engineering team to figure it out and crush Joe's company? Joe wouldn't stand a chance and would have zero competitive advantages. To me it's pretty clear cut that we absolutely need this system.
Functionally nothing prevents that today. It happens all the time. In fact the article referenced the famous case of RCA and the television... and that's just one of a billion small design firm stories.
I've spoken to patent lawyers as have my friends who are running a small engineering company that produces custom devices. It sounds insane, but it's a matter of functionality. If any yahoo could submit patents and enforce them, nothing would get done anywhere because there'd be millions of bogus vague patents injuncting everything.... and that's assuming something like 99.9% efficiency at the patent office... which, we simply don't have.
As a result the only people who can even functionally use the patent system are large organizations or legal entities.
>
> $40,000 for a provisional patent from start to finish with one of the premier patent and trademark firms in New York. Non-provisional is around $500. In addition you can get grants from many organizations to sponsor your patent under SBIR.
40000 dollars is an insanely large amount of money for a giant litigation bullseye.
Simple fact is, cheapest you can push a patent through for is around a 1000. And as any patent lawyer will tell you, you will likely get sued just for owning the patent.
ESPECIALLY if someone wants to compete with you. Company entering the market has options... sue you out of existence. buy you. attack the patent itself and try to discredit it. compete fairly...
guess what, they don't care about the ethics as long as they win, and sometimes suing the little guy out of existence is the most cost effective solution. hell, why even sue... you know they can't enforce their patent... so you just steal it. now what? they try to sue you? then what? they go bankrupt expending all of their resources just trying to fight you in court... they die, you win via attrition, and you dominate the market as a bonus.
40000 dollars is an insanely large amount of money for a giant litigation bullseye.
Simple fact is, cheapest you can push a patent through for is around a 1000. And as any patent lawyer will tell you, you will likely get sued just for owning the patent.
ESPECIALLY if someone wants to compete with you. Company entering the market has options... sue you out of existence. buy you. attack the patent itself and try to discredit it. compete fairly...
guess what, they don't care about the ethics as long as they win, and sometimes suing the little guy out of existence is the most cost effective solution. hell, why even sue... you know they can't enforce their patent... so you just steal it. now what? they try to sue you? then what? they go bankrupt expending all of their resources just trying to fight you in court... they die, you win via attrition, and you dominate the market as a bonus.
Interesting side note..
If you want to file a patent...
Go to grad school. Some schools will actually come to your legal defense ( with their own lawyers / patent arsenal ) if you register the patent while an active grad student.
I know a few people who have done that. Literally gone to grad school... just to register patents safely.
If you want to file a patent...
Go to grad school. Some schools will actually come to your legal defense ( with their own lawyers / patent arsenal ) if you register the patent while an active grad student.
I know a few people who have done that. Literally gone to grad school... just to register patents safely.
i have to sympathize with nny. when patents become more about creating monopolies than rewarding inventors, then it is unlikely they are producing net good. but then again there is not much incentive for pharmaceuticals to innovate if any 2 bit knock off could walk up and backwards engineer the same drug without endless and very costly trials and research.
Yeah, healthcare shouldn't be treated as a commodity... ever.