Comments on: The non-obvious utility of patents

By: Victor Lazlo

Victor Lazlo — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:26:50 +0000

Let’s get a few things straight.
I’ve only come up with two or three patented ideas.
The last one was for a physiologically powered cybernetic implant which would transmit medical information for life at any desired time.
This was reckoned to be worth £100 million a year to the company which I told about it(while I was working for them).
They fired me with legal minimum redundancy.
The ‘law’ of Britain probably supports them, but I can’t afford to find out.
Now I’m driving a truck.
And quite happy to continue doing that until I can get to Canada, where Patents mean ‘Property’, not ‘kudos’.
I don’t want a knighthood.
I want more life, fucker!

By: Stoatman

Stoatman — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:03:29 +0000

Dale,

Please don’t confuse the clusterfeck that the US PTO has caused with a properly functioning patent system

By: Dale Amon

Dale Amon — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:23:11 +0000

However the patent system was set up in a world where things moved slowly and was not intended to be used the way it is today. Companies write broad patents and write them in such a way as to make sure the important information is obfuscated.

I have been told by a fairly well known Silicon Valley entrepreneur that lawyers advise that engineers whould *NOT* read patents in any case. If a large company goes after you for infringement, if you can plead ignorance they only get straight damages. If they can prove you had actually read the document, they get triple damages.

Patents are no longer about disclosure. They are about a strategy for preventing development. Look at the SCO fiascos.

Patents have become a total farce.

By: stoatman

stoatman — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:23:57 +0000

Robert,

But it has been tried before — albeit a long time ago. And in general it didn’t work (although one exception to this is the dye stuffs industry in the 19th century), with those countries offering patent protection experiencing greater economic and technological growth.

Why build yourself a house if any old bugger can come and live in it?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:35:51 +0000

Robert’s point about the conceptual problem is a very good one – it also highlights one place where the conservative-libertarians and libertarian-conservatives part ways!

But Uian mustn’t realise that the point of a trade secret is to remain secret, and thus to the manufacturer’s advantage, not to defeat a subsequent patent claim.

If you doubt that that entails significant costs, try visiting a high-tech factory like a chip fab or hard disk manufacturer or LCD panel factory.

By: Robert Speirs

Robert Speirs — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:47:05 +0000

“Name me an actual country without a patent system who does “better” at innovation, please”
I see. Because no one has ever tried freedom, it mustn’t work. The lack of government protection of patents isn’t the reason for the lack of innovation in dictatorships or socialist kleptocracies. It is up to those advocating any government program, imposed by force, to prove its efficacy, taking into account ALL the costs. One way to do that might be to take a country with no patent system, institute a patent system and determine if that system stimulated innovation. But statists prefer to assume their conclusions.

By: Stoatman

Stoatman — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 15:00:29 +0000

Robert,

Name me an actual country without a patent system who does “better” at innovation, please. Also, please cite an example of the “similar enough but not infringing” case, including the relevant patent number and evidence that the patent was worthless as a result.

Otherwise you’re just indulging in fundamentalist Libertarian claptrap.

By: Robert Speirs

Robert Speirs — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:55:38 +0000

The disclosure aspect of patents is the system’s Achilles’ heel. With today’s custom manufacturing, a product just similar enough to undercut the market for the patented invention without infringing can be manufactured almost immediately. And if one can assume that the altered invention is not quite as good as the patented one, the market gets lower-quality goods. The cost of the law-driven alteration is a waste, as is the cost of defending the patent.
Unfettered competition works better.

By: llamas

llamas — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:49:51 +0000

Very well said.

llater,

llamas

(who is the inventor of 32 US patents, but not that I’m biased, you understand)

By: Stoatman

Stoatman — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 10:18:22 +0000

Without patents, what is the incentive for a company to spend millions on R&D to develop a product and bring it to market when another company can immediately reverse engineer it at significantly less cost and then market an identical product at lower price? without patents you wouldn’t have your superduper technology that you enjoy every day, since development would be utterly economically unviable.

By: Uain

Uain — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:10:04 +0000

“That which would otherwise be protected by secrecy at great cost”…

The cost of a Trade Secret derives from all you need to do to completely document the timeline of invention and implimentation on a product; and then defend this in court if some one else files a patent on the same idea at a later time. This outcome is usually a given in that people with similar education, experience and faced with the same problem invariably arrive at the same solution, exspecially when reduced to patent claims.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:04:47 +0000

She already cited the principal justification:

publication and transaction costs.

The secondary is recompense and the incentive to invent, but that is somewhat less solid.

That which would otherwise be protected by secrecy at great cost (to the users and the greater public) and difficulty is made public, but restricted in its use. Thus, apparently, humanity is enrichened at greater speed than would otherwise be the case.