Patents - Friend or foe of capitalism?

[Jingles]

I take a middle of the road. It should not be permanent, but you should get first crack at it.

It is a tough situation.

That's what the market does. The one who first produces a good or services maintains a great advantage in profits, name promotion (brand name), etc... They will have great gains in the short term, but when you introduce a patent into the equation they will not be incentived to continually improve on their product by others who will to produce the good or service as well (who wish to produce it in a more effective, efficient, cheaper, and a better quality product). So if you grant someone a monopoly on this you shield them from the market, in effect, reducing the continual advancements to be made in the product for the firm/person that created the product "first" does not have the need to improve on the product for they don't have to (for they have no legally allowable competition). Patents stifle the process of the market.

 

[rpwi]

Great example of patents retarding as opposed to encouraging creativity is in the airline industry. The airplane was going to be invented without the Wright brothers. The industrial revolution had grown to the point that many industrial materials become cheap enough for flight hobbyist to conduct proper experiments (especially when it came to light-weight engines). It was time... Indeed to this day many countries outside of the US lay claim to launching the first airplane...many of such claims are not entirely untrue...although the Wright Brother's machine was certainly the most maneuverable.

What ensued was an epic patent war...and to a large extent the Wright Brother's patents were not enforced in Europe. With this advantage, almost all of the early advances in early airplane technology came from Europe...and many claimed the US flight industry was severely retarded by the Wright patents.

Internet (largely) is another great example of how a lack of patents helped grow an industry. There are certainly many patent/IP problems in the internet...but the core structure HTML is an open standard...and this has been a huge boon to the net. It is most unfortunate that people don't realize how important open standards are, and are moving toward and supporting closed standards (like flash, iphones, iphone apps, facebook apps, social networks in general, etc...). Very scary stuff for innovation.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Personally I think pursuing a patent is a waste of time, only lawyers get rich from it. Both with the patent lawyers during the patent process and the patent infringements afterwards. The Wright brother wasted time and resources trying to protect their patent instead of marketing their flying machine. Keeping their aircraft so secret at the time, that many people didn’t believe they even flew. I’ve dabbled in inventing things from time to time. coming up with ideas and actually trying to develop a prototype, Tomas Edison style. It’s difficult, better to join a inventers club and get help, use division of labor. I have seen some of my ideas come to fruition, but not by my hand. Someone else came up with these ideas independently and marketed them. More determination, more perseverance, more power to them.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Originally Postes by Jingles

That's what the market does. The one who first produces a good or services maintains a great advantage in profits, name promotion (brand name), etc... They will have great gains in the short term, but when you introduce a patent into the equation they will not be incentived to continually improve on their product by others who will to produce the good or service as well (who wish to produce it in a more effective, efficient, cheaper, and a better quality product). So if you grant someone a monopoly on this you shield them from the market, in effect, reducing the continual advancements to be made in the product for the firm/person that created the product "first" does not have the need to improve on the product for they don't have to (for they have no legally allowable competition). Patents stifle the process of the market.

Good example of this is the Fein tools patented I believe in 84 once the patent was up many tool manufacturers started selling oscillating tools. That forced Fein to make an improvement it now has a quick release blade attachment. Awesome tool by the way.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's what the market does. The one who first produces a good or services maintains a great advantage in profits, name promotion (brand name), etc... They will have great gains in the short term, but when you introduce a patent into the equation they will not be incentived to continually improve on their product by others who will to produce the good or service as well (who wish to produce it in a more effective, efficient, cheaper, and a better quality product). So if you grant someone a monopoly on this you shield them from the market, in effect, reducing the continual advancements to be made in the product for the firm/person that created the product "first" does not have the need to improve on the product for they don't have to (for they have no legally allowable competition). Patents stifle the process of the market.

THANK YOU!! I try explaining this every time IP comes up, but people just don't seem to want to get it.

 

[Steven Douglas]

I started out as IP friend before I came here (four generations of inventors with patents), but I'm steadily headed toward adamant foe.

My only holdout has been the general concept of a headstart for an original innovator, which has appeal to me on some level. But that's a very small holdout, because the tiny innovator typically doesn't get adequate protection anyway, and IP ends up being mostly a bunch of worthless paper amongst the actual shields and swords of industry Titans. Every once in a while you'll see a little guy win a big suit against an industry giant (or more than one), but usually it's the other way around, with Cease and Desist and other threats issued from bullies on the playground, even if they don't have an actual leg to stand on.

I will say that I am now fully of the opinion that IP stunts innovation overall. I also found that fashion industry video from TED extremely compelling.

So - IP foe, after all these years of simply accepting that it was a good thing and worth defending in principle.

 

[Jingles]

THANK YOU!! I try explaining this every time IP comes up, but people just don't seem to want to get it.

Some people don't want to and I have had these debates for quite a while within my libertarian club (well to be fair with one guy the entire club disagrees with). And he will concede to patents being incorrect, but not to IP. I think any libertarian that takes the time to read and listen to Stephen Kinsella eventually gets it and he has not yet. I just don't see any free market justification for patents (even for those that are minarchists). Also in regards to IP the best example I give is the fact that If I steal your personal property then that is of course theft. But if I go and create an item/object/product/etc... that is the same as your product that has not taken anything of your personal property how is that theft? When did theft become creating something new (even if it is exactly the same). Labor, capital, resources, etc... went into producing the same thing, but it was not theft if I copied you but did not steal your on property physically. Same applies for digitally. If I download a song to my computer, and someone copies the song to there computer it creates a second file (although they contain the same content), what theft did they commit? They did not steal the songs, they simply created a new file. Same applies for ideas if you express them to others. We aren't in 2nd grade yelling at others "COPYCAT" anymore.

 

[The Free Hornet]

patents are a friend of capitalism.

friend of free markets? maybe not so much.

Capitalism is private ownership and control. Patents and copyrights are closer to state ownership and control:

cap·i·tal·ism   [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

Albeit, the definition does not make this point clear. Perhaps you meant "patents are a friend to fascists and mercantalists and corporatists"?


Here is the purpose of patents:

It may look they are fighting. That's what children sometimes think when they see sex. What is happening above is a web designed to keep the little players out. They all very much enjoy their "fighting".

It benefits the lawyers, not the innovators.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Just read through all the posts on this thread and am shocked to see that I agree with Roy L on something. Makes me question myself. Am I wrong about this?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Just read through all the posts on this thread and am shocked to see that I agree with Roy L on something. Makes me question myself. Am I wrong about this?

+1 don't worry, you're on the right side of the issue.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Originally Posted by The Free Hornet

It may look they are fighting. That's what children sometimes think when they see sex. What is happening above is a web designed to keep the little players out. They all very much enjoy their "fighting".

It benefits the lawyers, not the innovators.

Sex hell, thats an orgy.

 

[Roy L]

Just read through all the posts on this thread and am shocked to see that I agree with Roy L on something. Makes me question myself. Am I wrong about this?

Of course not. You are just wrong about all the things you disagree with me about. Can you refute anything I have written, on any subject? Of course not. You just have to find a willingness to understand the relationship between being proved wrong and actually being wrong. It's not that hard once you get the hang of it.

 

[Travlyr]

If there is no patent protection, then why would anyone invest in R&D? It would be much more profitable to just sit back, let the other guy do all the work, and then mass produce his product.

 

[Roy L]

If there is no patent protection, then why would anyone invest in R&D?

To earn more money, same as they did before there was any patent "protection."

It would be much more profitable to just sit back, let the other guy do all the work, and then mass produce his product.

Garbage. How will you know what to mass produce, until he has demonstrated the market's acceptance of the product by making money from it? How will you stop others from competing with you by making the same product at an even lower price?

Your claims are typical of the brain-dead, economically absurd nonsense that is routinely trotted out to rationalize patent monopolies.

 

[Roy L]

Personally I think pursuing a patent is a waste of time, only lawyers get rich from it.

You forgot those Heroes of Innovation, top corporate execs and shareholders...

 

[heavenlyboy34]

To earn more money, same as they did before there was any patent "protection."

Garbage. How will you know what to mass produce, until he has demonstrated the market's acceptance of the product by making money from it? How will you stop others from competing with you by making the same product at an even lower price?

Your claims are typical of the brain-dead, economically absurd nonsense that is routinely trotted out to rationalize patent monopolies.

Amazing. I agree with you 100% on this. Thanks for contributing to the thread.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You forgot those Heroes of Innovation, top corporate execs and shareholders...

lol! Reminds me of the various pop stars who were suckered into giving exclusive (or mostly exclusive) "ownership" of profits earned by "performances" of songs to record companies. IIRC, Don McLean gave up most rights to "American Pie" in order to get published. It made a lot of money for the publishers, and he got some scraps. Did you know the "Happy Birthday" song is copyrighted? To this day, "performances" (using the definition in the Copyright act, of course) of this song earn royalties for the copyright owner. (I don't recall his name now).

 

[Roy L]

If there is no patent protection, then why would anyone invest in R&D? It would be much more profitable to just sit back, let the other guy do all the work, and then mass produce his product.

I forgot to mention: without patents, every product becomes a commodity that anyone can produce, so competition drives out all profits EXCEPT those of the innovators who have invested in R&D and are thus offering something new that others haven't started producing yet! So no patents means an INCREASED economic incentive to innovate, not a reduced one. The truth is the exact, diametric opposite of your claims.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I forgot to mention: without patents, every product becomes a commodity that anyone can produce, so competition drives out all profits EXCEPT those of the innovators who have invested in R&D and are thus offering something new that others haven't started producing yet! So no patents means an INCREASED economic incentive to innovate, not a reduced one. The truth is the exact, diametric opposite of your claims.

qft!

 

[thoughtomator]

An inventor has a natural market advantage by virtue of having invented an invention - a knowledge gap between him and his competitors. He needs no violence of the State in order to leverage that gap. He has no moral claim to any more privilege with regards to the invention.