Patents. Do they hinder progress?

CaptainComedy

CaptainComedy

CaptainComedy

Permabanned
Joined
3 Jul 2008
Posts
3,762
Location
My fabulous ship
Obviously the makers want their pot of gold/recognition etc.

But if nobody cared do you think advancements would go quicker? I mean 20 years is a long time. Isnt there a better way to go about it? Not that I can think of one ofcourse lol
 
Techical innovation has massive positive externalities and therefore in a normal market innovation will not happen at a scale with which is beneficial to society. Patents attempt to make firms think about these externalities when deciding on whether to commit to R&D by giving them a financial incentive or stake in these externalities. This results in an increase in innovation to a level which is better for society.

The question end up being, would you have no innovation x, or have to pay the company for x even if it is a monopoly for 20 years. The answer is easy. The latter gives the people who derive enough utility to purchase innovation x the choice to do so. Society as a whole is better off. Property rights are crucial to achieveing Pareto efficiency.

edit:

A problem in the case of things like medicine and computer software is that, a patent can sometimes result in a negative right on others. Another firm may make the same innovation but be unable to use it due to someone else making the innovation first (but you could argue the existence of the tight patent system drove them to make it in the first place). So I believe that patent lengths need to be carefully adjusted such that proliferation of innovation isn't hindered, nor the innovation itself. This is a very complex area of economics which I obviously don't have the expertise to answer properly.
 
Last edited:
I think another factor would be whether somebody is on their own, or within a company that soley depends on patents. For example pharmaceutical companies can patent new chemical manipulations, and the research required to do this and eventually produce a new prescribable drug is extensive. Therefore a patent is required which will help fund a new drug further down the line.
 
Greenlizard0 said:
I think another factor would be whether somebody is on their own, or within a company that soley depends on patents. For example pharmaceutical companies can patent new chemical manipulations, and the research required to do this and eventually produce a new prescribable drug is extensive. Therefore a patent is required which will help fund a new drug further down the line.
Click to expand...

With well functioning capital markets i.e. not now, this shouldn't be a problem. If an idea exists with the correct risk-return then a pharmaceutical company should be able to raise capital with no problems. In fact some would argue it is better to invest via raising capital because it introduces a level of accountability to a firm. Of course you weigh this against managers knowing more about a certain investment than shareholders or potential shareholders/bondholders.

Either way, a patent system shouldnt exists merely to help a firms ability to invest, but the incentives to invest. Thats all that matters.
 
CrazySpeaker said:
No. If people's ideas could just be copied then nobody would bother to invest money making something radical for someone just to copy it.
Click to expand...

So THAT'S why Linux is still just a few lines of code running on a single university student's CLI, with nobody working on it or deploying it on some of the most mission-critical situations known to man?

Oh, wait...

:p
 
Rainmaker said:
So THAT'S why Linux is still just a few lines of code running on a single university student's CLI, with nobody working on it or deploying it on some of the most mission-critical situations known to man?

Oh, wait...

:p
Click to expand...

Well I was speaking generally. Software does seem to be a bit of an exception. Probably because it doesn't really cost much/anything to develop a new Linux distro. other than time.
 
If anything they encourage progress... They still won't stop those Chinese manufacturers shamelessly copying your designs however...
 
CrazySpeaker said:
Well I was speaking generally. Software does seem to be a bit of an exception. Probably because it doesn't really cost much/anything to develop a new Linux distro. other than time.
Click to expand...

But more people + resources = less time but with more cost.

Look at the whole idea of open source. Packages built by communities seem to have much faster progress than a whole new company driven by a small group of investors. Because its foundation is built upon getting more investment to get the resources in the first place - where as open source already has the man power and resources to continue growth at an acceptable pace.

And I love how my pc boots into linux (free) in 3 seconds but it takes 5 minutes to boot into vista (Cost £100)
 
codec said:
But more people + resources = less time but with more cost.

Look at the whole idea of open source. Packages built by communities seem to have much faster progress than a whole new company driven by a small group of investors. Because its foundation is built upon getting more investment to get the resources in the first place - where as open source already has the man power and resources to continue growth at an acceptable pace.

And I love how my pc boots into linux (free) in 3 seconds but it takes 5 minutes to boot into vista (Cost £100)
Click to expand...

You must have problems then, because Vista boots in about 12 seconds for me.

I also disagree that all open source software develops faster than closed source software. Photoshop is much more advanced than GIMP, Windows is more advanced than Linux, etc. etc.
 
CrazySpeaker said:
You must have problems then, because Vista boots in about 12 seconds for me.
Click to expand...

uh-huh? are you running a massively slimmed down copy, or using an SSD

if not, you're simply lying or mistaken as to how long it actually takes to boot. have you actually timed it?
i've timed windows 7s bootup, which is universally credited with booting faster than Vista. it takes 35 seconds to get to the login screen from a cold boot, and a further 15 to get to the desktop.
 
I think there should be some kind of limit to the ability to hold a paent without developing it/selling it. Say 5 years instead of 20. That way there will be more fluidity in the market, either develop it or loose it.

And my Vista takes about 30 seconds to load up to the user screen, and another 10-15 seconds to boot to seable desktop.
 
There is a lot of innovation in the GPL >> linux world, admittedly backed by companies, but I think they make there money on support rather than selling the product it self.

I mean just compare compiz-fusion and [insert your fav linux desktop env here] comapred to win 7.
 
Patents encourage companies to spend Research & Development (R&D) cash on new ideas because they get the chance to recoup the economic investment through licencing/selling the product etc. R&D is not cheap so in a capitalist society then you've got to provide some incentive that the hard work of some cannot simply be legally copied by others who haven't invested in it but would reap the rewards.

Patents don't encourage progress because some companies will not utilise their discoveries (a patent basically to block competitors), some companies will make bad use of their developments, some companies will take a 'scatter-gun' approach and try to patent anything that could come from their R&D labs. The sharing of knowledge usually leads to faster developments in any given sphere because you (almost literally) don't have to re-invent the wheel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom