Patents - Friend or foe of capitalism?

[rpwi]

Curious to see what the people think...

The major problem with patents is simple... What if somebody else would have thought of the idea on their own? In such a case the government patent is state tyranny akin to mercantilism. The patent owner then is able to exercise undo exclusive control over the idea which results in a monopoly...and monopolies result in high prices and reduces supply.

On the flip-side if government does not award exclusive access to an idea...and nobody else would have thought of it...then the inventor is not afforded the proportionate economic awards for his creativity and effort.

It's a tricky issue... And quite wide-spread. You can point your finger almost anywhere in a room...on a street...wherever...and you'll probably be pointing at something that has been patented and has government approved exclusive privileges. In my estimation...your average patent clerk does not and can not have the capability of determining whether the invention is too obvious or would have been invented elsewhere. Furthermore they are under tremendous concentrated commercial pressure to approve as many patents as fast as possible... Many major monopolies and quasi-monopolies that we see strangely dominate certain sectors of the economy...actually do so in part because of their control over critical patents. So IMO it is more important to error on the extreme of not having enough patents...and ultimately the best safeguard may be do to away with patents altogether.

Thoughts?

 

[hazek]

Huge foe.

Real world evidence:

 

[specsaregood]

Huge friend.

 

[Voluntary Man]

patents are a friend of capitalism.

friend of free markets? maybe not so much.

 

[tttppp]

Foe. First of all patents are worthless in most industries. Usually only the process is patentable, which is largely worthless because if somebody want to, they could just figure out another way to accomplish the same thing. If ideas were patentable, I would say thats bullshit. Nobody has more of a right to an idea than me simply because the patented it first. What matters is who markets their idea first. Thats who the real winner should be. All patents do is reduce the motivation of people to get their ideas to market as quickly as possible.

 

[Jingles]

A state granted monopoly on a given product/good for a period of time. How is this a friend of the free market?

 

[rpwi]

Huge foe.

Real world evidence:

...

Interesting video... As bad as it is in the fashion industry...it is MUCH worse in software. All the major applications have and/or will face serious frivolous patent lawsuits. Almost all leading application/OS'es/internet apps...succeed on the backs of numerous patents. eg There will never be another google...not because it requires such economies of scale and skilled talent...but because google owns all the best patents. You can't reinvent the wheel so you're stuck with a of these companies. Not necessarily a patent issue...but did you know Motorola with droid has to pay George Lucas licensing fees...just to use that word? It's ridiculous...and jacking up the prices of droids. Android itself it under so many patent attacks it is absolutely ridiculous...and it'll be a miracle if it survives them all.

 

[specsaregood]

Not necessarily a patent issue...but did you know Motorola with droid has to pay George Lucas licensing fees...just to use that word?

yeah, I figure that isn't a patent issue at all but rather a trademark issue. Those are 2 completely seperate issues.

 

[rpwi]

yeah, I figure that isn't a patent issue at all but rather a trademark issue. Those are 2 completely seperate issues.

True enough...but that needs reforming too. Originally trademarks were intended to protect identification. A very good thing...so you know that product X with Y reputation...really does have Y reputation and not reputation Z. But this has really been skewed wacky...and now it is a game of linguistic tag...that has lost it root intent. Does anybody think if you buy a droid that you will be buying a robot from Star Wars? Clearly, this is a case where trademark law has gone awry. Executed properly and on a much more literal and narrow scope than it is now...trademark law is a very good thing. eg I don't want to be buying Chinese knockoffs...

 

[flynn]

foe.

 

[specsaregood]

True enough...but that needs reforming too. Originally trademarks were intended to protect identification. A very good thing...so you know that product X with Y reputation...really does have Y reputation and not reputation Z. But this has really been skewed wacky...and now it is a game of linguistic tag...that has lost it root intent. Does anybody think if you buy a droid that you will be buying a robot from Star Wars? Clearly, this is a case where trademark law has gone awry. Executed properly and on a much more literal and narrow scope than it is now...trademark law is a very good thing. eg I don't want to be buying Chinese knockoffs...

I'd say much the same things about patents. I like them but its been abused. Maybe 1% of the patents awarded should actually be awarded.

 

[rpwi]

The history of patents is actually quite fascinating. It turns out they weren't that widespread when the USA was founded (think Britian was the only other country that had them). The very first patent office of the US (Thomas Jefferson) actually became quite disillusioned with the process and eventually would come out against patents as seen in the following letter:

http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel/jefferson-macpherson-letter.html

In the letter he gives a great example of patent silliness using a patent for a "Archimedes's screw" which he reviewed.

Some libertarians like Harry Browne have spoken out against the concept of patents (Harry like me asked...what if somebody else would have invented it?)

Rothbard is also famously against patents. One of his more famous papers on the subject is: 'Patents and Copyrights'

www.ccsindia.org/lacs/7patents_copyrights.pdf

 

[green73]

IP is horrible for humanity. An idea is not a scarce resource. Only a granted monopoly can make it such.

Watch Stephan Kinsella (The Austrian economist go-to guy on this issue)

 

[danda]

Of "Capitalism" as it exists today? Friend, cuz that's what they are used to.

Of Freedom and Liberty? Foe.

Of a Free Market and Free Enterprise? Foe.

Of the software industry? Foe.


Unlike scarce physical resources such as land and goods, an idea is intangible and can exist in multiple brains at the same time. Prohibiting the voluntary expression of the idea is an act of force. Period. As such, it is incompatible with a free society. And, as with all prohibitions, it is also bound to cause all sorts of unintended consequences and ridiculousness. evidence: software patent industry, pharmaceutical patent industry, cheap chinese clones, generics, patent sharks, patent lawyers, etc.

The founders believed that copyrights and patents represented a tradeoff between individual liberty and "advancement". Personally, I believe that tradeoff is not necessary. Nevertheless they made it, and it has been strengthened, elongated, and abused every since. Very probably has stifled more innovation and progress than it has promoted.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

smart cookies!

Foe. First of all patents are worthless in most industries. Usually only the process is patentable, which is largely worthless because if somebody want to, they could just figure out another way to accomplish the same thing. If ideas were patentable, I would say thats bullshit. Nobody has more of a right to an idea than me simply because the patented it first. What matters is who markets their idea first. Thats who the real winner should be. All patents do is reduce the motivation of people to get their ideas to market as quickly as possible.

this^^

Of "Capitalism" as it exists today? Friend, cuz that's what they are used to.

Of Freedom and Liberty? Foe.

Of a Free Market and Free Enterprise? Foe.

Of the software industry? Foe.


Unlike scarce physical resources such as land and goods, an idea is intangible and can exist in multiple brains at the same time. Prohibiting the voluntary expression of the idea is an act of force. Period. As such, it is incompatible with a free society. And, as with all prohibitions, it is also bound to cause all sorts of unintended consequences and ridiculousness. evidence: software patent industry, pharmaceutical patent industry, cheap chinese clones, generics, patent sharks, patent lawyers, etc.

The founders believed that copyrights and patents represented a tradeoff between individual liberty and "advancement". Personally, I believe that tradeoff is not necessary. Nevertheless they made it, and it has been strengthened, elongated, and abused every since. Very probably has stifled more innovation and progress than it has promoted.

and this^^

IP is horrible for humanity. An idea is not a scarce resource. Only a granted monopoly can make it such.

Watch Stephan Kinsella (The Austrian economist go-to guy on this issue)

and this^^

 

[hazek]

I'm glad to see this forum slowly coming around against the ridiculous idea of IP.

 

[ProIndividual]

Foe mostly.

I do believe in IP somewhat however, so I don't want to be absolutist here. If you invent something, I'm all for you NOT having exclusive rights that reverse engineering can copy...BUT I am for you having the ability to sue someone putting your name or brand name on their version of your shit. Same goes for IP books or movies mostly. With books, you should be able to sell them, and one copy should be available for infinite re-cpying, PROVIDED those copies can't be re-shared and re-copied again. I wish they'd figure out how to do this already. It's like a library where the same book can be lent out to 10,000 people at once, but they themselves can't lend it out to others because it isn't theirs to lend. Same thing for movies.

That being said, I'm not for a state doing this. I'm for a private company handling it via free market arbitration service. Also, I'm not completely concrete in how I feel about it yet. I've looked into it a lot, and it seems like their decent arguments for some very limited IP like I'm describing, but not full on patents and full on copyright.

The main thing I want to see is that 1) you have no obligation to share your secrets or materials with anyone else, 2) you get credit for your work without being left with complaints of others who do lesser jobs under your name, and 3) that copies of copyright material only go one party removed from lawful recipoents (because that's how it works in the real world). If you give it away to someone else, or resell it, they should be able to go one party away via borrowing/file sharing...but not more. I don't care if 1,000,000,000 people get it, as long as it's only one party removed from the lawful owner.

Someone tell me why this sucks or where there's a thread to help me argue for/against such things...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Foe mostly.

I do believe in IP somewhat however, so I don't want to be absolutist here. If you invent something, I'm all for you NOT having exclusive rights that reverse engineering can copy...BUT I am for you having the ability to sue someone putting your name or brand name on their version of your shit. Same goes for IP books or movies mostly. With books, you should be able to sell them, and one copy should be available for infinite re-cpying, PROVIDED those copies can't be re-shared and re-copied again. I wish they'd figure out how to do this already. It's like a library where the same book can be lent out to 10,000 people at once, but they themselves can't lend it out to others because it isn't theirs to lend. Same thing for movies.

That being said, I'm not for a state doing this. I'm for a private company handling it via free market arbitration service. Also, I'm not completely concrete in how I feel about it yet. I've looked into it a lot, and it seems like their decent arguments for some very limited IP like I'm describing, but not full on patents and full on copyright.

The main thing I want to see is that 1) you have no obligation to share your secrets or materials with anyone else, 2) you get credit for your work without being left with complaints of others who do lesser jobs under your name, and 3) that copies of copyright material only go one party removed from lawful recipoents (because that's how it works in the real world). If you give it away to someone else, or resell it, they should be able to go one party away via borrowing/file sharing...but not more. I don't care if 1,000,000,000 people get it, as long as it's only one party removed from the lawful owner.

Someone tell me why this sucks or where there's a thread to help me argue for/against such things...

That's an excellent point. That is fraud, and should be dealt with as such. When it's done in a university, for example, the consequence is some sort of academic discipline-often expulsion.

The main thing I want to see is that 1) you have no obligation to share your secrets or materials with anyone else, 2) you get credit for your work without being left with complaints of others who do lesser jobs under your name, and 3) that copies of copyright material only go one party removed from lawful recipoents (because that's how it works in the real world). If you give it away to someone else, or resell it, they should be able to go one party away via borrowing/file sharing...but not more. I don't care if 1,000,000,000 people get it, as long as it's only one party removed from the lawful owner. .

This though, isn't so solid. No. 2 is already a legitimate crime-fraud. No 3 is a failure because this is actually NOT how information "moves" in the real world. When you give some information away (say a book), their ownership gives them the right to create as many copies as they desire.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm glad to see this forum slowly coming around against the ridiculous idea of IP.

+a zillion.

 

[InTradePro]

Foe mostly.