theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/the-case-for-abolishing-patents-yes-all-of-them
The article discusses a Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis working paper by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, professors at Washington University in St. Louis.
The crux if their argument is that innovation is stifled as the patent system is used as a source of income through litigation.
Read the article and then discuss. Do you think that the patent issue has hurt or helped the tactical industry?
Tags: The Atlantic
There are cases and cases… sometimes patents are a problem, and sometimes helps to keep the work with sensitive stuff in the right hands. If everybody try to make holographic sights, the number of shooters with lasers aiming directly to their eyes will skyrocket.
In other cases instead of litigation for patents, money is better spend in brand recognition and development of new products, specially in a global market where you can throw millions trying to make a Chinese factory stop cloning your stuff.
Patents are an enforced monopoly on thoughts and ideas. An idea isn’t property. When you try to turn it into property through legislation, you run into all sorts of moral issues.
Beyond that, patenting segments technology and stifles development and innovation. It does not encourage it. Before patents, and in later industries where patents did not exist (yet), competitors built on each others’ ideas, leading to faster development and better products by everyone, for everyone.
Yes, you can capitalize on an idea you came up with yourself without patents. You can do so by being first.
The stifled innovation argument makes sense when you’re not the one doing the inventing or fronting the cash. I’ll tell you what will stifle innovation, investing a crap load of time and money into a new product and a month after it comes out 5 other companies are selling the same reversed engineered product at a cheaper price because they didn’t have to spend a penny on R&D? It’s hard to justify spending everything you have and risk losing the shirt on your back when there’s nothing to protect your investment.
The Chinese (and other countries) would love this to happen since copying is better than innovation and patents have the protection of keeping those products out of the country o countries where the patent lives. Safety in the case of the tactical industry, comes to mind. Imagine a cheaply made copy of a weapon component that malfunctions and maims or kills someone. I don’t believe it stifles development due to the fact that many ideas are based on other ideas. A quick look at any patent will show references to previous related patents throughout history. Many patents don’t make it into the public eye for any number of reasons but the idea is published for all to see. Some will see a patent and acquire the rights. Others will build on it as an improvement. There is good and bad in any system. Patents and patent pendings don’t necessarily scare off companies in the US from copying either. Some prefer to gamble that the inventor won’t go after them, can’t afford to litigate or even produce the product for any term. There are many good ideas from small inventors that, without a patent protection, would get robbed by larger companies with more assets and bigger guns to take your idea and run with it. Those larger companies would also be at the mercy of countries that copy goods without ever having to pay the costs of research, development, testing and evaluations.
Ideas are property / intellectual property rights. Patents don’t prevent innovation. Patents protect those who developed the idea to prohibit those who plan to copy. China and other countries don’t really care about honoring patents or intellectual property rights that much as we have seen with limitless amounts of fakes for export as well as an Apple Store being operated without the authorization from Apple. If anything patents compel innovation because other firms are forced to alter the original item or develope their own. If patents went away then the number of innovators would as well. They wouldn’t make money off of their concepts and spec for spec copies would be made mostly by the cheapest manufactuer / over seas.
Make no mistake; it’s not patents that authorize manufacturing over seas, it’s WTO laws and agreements. Patents protect innovation, period.
Exactly. There is a direct correlation between strong patent systems and innovation. Socialism does not work neither does ‘sharing” ideas.
I see the need for patents, however current patent law needs to be significantly reformed.
It was just “reformed” by the hacks in the White House. How do you think it should be reformed? Or is that just a on the one hand on the other waffle sal?
Some ideas:
1. higher the standards
2. shorten the terms
3. use it or lose it
+1 OCMike
My argument in an elegant nutshell. Patents have been a keystone of American innovation since George Washington signed them into existence in 1790. We weren’t the first to have patents, but we were the first to formalize and institute the process in a practical way.
Our patent system has proved a substantial incentive for creative minds all over the world to immigrate to America and is responsible in no small part for the scientific and technological supremacy we enjoy today. After all, why would you put the blood, money, and sweat into designing a new product if you couldn’t turn around and support your family with it?
The patent system today has had difficulty adapting to the pace of modern technology, as evidence by the ridiculous Apple victory (we own squares with rounded corners!). But it will catch up. In between now and then, calling for its abolishment is nothing more than the cries of short-sighted fools.
*evidenced
Nothing wrong with apple design patent on certain types of icons.
Ask yourself why are all these other mobile phones copying Apples design ? Can’t they come up w something else? Ie innovating instead of copying?
I think you mean icons as in “iconic design features” (?) or perhaps the literal icons in the GUI (?) Though, to be clear, I was referring to the body of the phone.
Either way, I would say it is somewhat absurd to claim proprietorship of what is essentially a very common shape. Both in the sense of the body of the phone and in the sense of what shapes an icon’s border may use.
I agree, Apple’s patent suit was silly and it actually brought Samsung phones to more people’s attention with people realizing that they can get something similar in look, feel, and function to an iPhone but for like half the price. To me what also makes Apple’s suit silly is that with something like a cell phone there are really only so many ways that you can design the outside case and still have good ergonomics.
it would be nice if it didn’t cost several thousand dollars to obtain a patent.
It would be nice if I could fly to the moon by flapping my arm nunnuts
+1 Big Red One. After spending several thousands odor dollars and hundreds of hours of R&D, we launched several new products (2 To 1 Triglide, THORNTAIL), only to have copies emerge which we’ve received no compensation for lost revenue or royalties because our Patent’s have not yet been issued. When they are, we plan to pursue protection for our property, and damages for willful violators. Our council explained Patents as a lock. Not 100% protection, but it keeps most out. The issue is the funds to pay for litigation. To IWC, it’s like the argument against the 2nd. Absolutely no compromise. We thought of the idea, invested in it, took a risk on bringing it to market and want all the benefits of it by God. Copycats, the lazy and the people who believe in sharing everything can move to China!
Hear hear!
Patent system could be used in different ways, some of them are good, some – not.
The whole patent system is a good thing, especially if companies use it in original way – it definitely helps to protect the money spent on R&D.
But there are some ways to abuse the patent system.
– Branch patents, protecting not just the original invention, but all things related to it. Even if inventor don’t have any real intention to produce all that things. It causes only licensing wars, not real “idea protection”.
– Patents on obvious things. Obvious things could be patented if mixed with something really new and declared as part of invention. It causes licensing wars again. (Remember all that mess with power connectors on cell phones?)
If companies are honest and use patent system just for protection – it’s good. If they get patents just for “squatting” some rights – it should not happen. The big question is, how to stop the second case.
While our patent system has struggled with keeping up with technology and smaller funding to do so… it should definitely NOT be abandoned… those not interested in spending big dollars on R & D can still adapt and improve upon an idea… but copying it is stopped. Unless you are in a foreign country (like China) where the knock off is actually encouraged. I believe it was referred to as the fast follower business plan… or just plain old leaches! I have spent 3 decades developing products in multiple industries and patents and working around them has always been a big part of product innovation.
Our patent system was just upended by Congress. It used to be first to invent got the patent, now it’s first to file. Say goodbye to the small inventor.
As a small inventor, I like the USPTO and the process.