Intellectual Property = Monopoly = Inefficiency

[Erik Mesoy]

Fair point.

There's two things that concern me about being dependent on Universities and gov't funded labs. First, it's that we end up paying for it anyway, and typically the free market develops things more cost-effectively (since it has a much bigger incentive to do so). Second, would you agree that there's a place for both, and they are complementary? I.e. patents don't take anything away from universities, and there's no reason why we can't increase funding to unis/labs publicly, whilst keeping the current patent system in tandem.

Small objection: Patents do take away something from universities, namely the ability to discover and distribute certain things. This is I why opined earlier that independent invention should invalidate patents the way prior art does.
Also, while the free market "has" (inasmuch as it's animate ) a bigger incentive to develop things cost-efficiently, it also has an incentive to sell those things cost-efficiently, ie. for whatever price it can, and patents as they stand are essentially a state-enforced monopoly, which distorts the market.

 

[Verbose]

Okay, compare inventions/advancements over the past 200 years with inventions/advancements over the previous 2,000.

And inventions WERE protected before the C19, because they were harder to mimic in pre-industrial society...

The most prominent reasons inventions were historically a) less common before the last 200 years and b) still possible to exploit when made anyway, was the artisanal, guild based system of production.

That was entirely based on secrecy. Craft secrets were exactly that. The way to get hold of them was to become a Master craftsman. Since there was no copyright laws or intellectual property, priority nr 1 was to keep as much as possible secret, and even muddy the waters as to exactly what and how you did things.

That was why the Enlightenment was so dead set on doing away with the traditional craft and guild system. Not that they didn't like the products, but because it was designed to be opaque, obscure and secret.

And of course another big problem with the system was that if you restrict access to knowledge about production proceedures, it effectively restricts who can improve upon them, or invent a better replacement.

The French Revolution did away with all this, in favour of freedom of profession and trade, as well as the notion of making the craft and industry proceedures transparent, which would also improve competition and efficiency. Copyright laws to protect the rights of commercial exploitation wasn't top priority from the outset either it would seem. (But Common Law and Civil Law figure copy- and property-rights somewhat differently.)

 

[Mise]

Small objection: Patents do take away something from universities, namely the ability to discover and distribute certain things. This is I why opined earlier that independent invention should invalidate patents the way prior art does.

I think that's another fair point. I can't think of any objections to an "independent invention" clause, other than that it's pretty hard to prove that yours was truly independent... (which of course leads us to the question of upon whom the burden of proof falls).

Also, while the free market "has" (inasmuch as it's animate ) a bigger incentive to develop things cost-efficiently, it also has an incentive to sell those things cost-efficiently, ie. for whatever price it can, and patents as they stand are essentially a state-enforced monopoly, which distorts the market.

Well the profits are the incentive. In unis/labs you just do what you fancy, by and large, rather than what people ultimately need. We can infer that the reason why the products are so expensive is because they are in such high demand. So removing the incentive to develop high demand products removes high demand products developed by private industry -- we become entirely dependent on unis/labs for these developments.

And again, no-one's saying that universities can't also develop high demand products in a cost effective way, just that they will continue to do so (barring the situation you mentioned above) with or without patents.

I won't address the question of whether patents are a state-enforced monopoly, because it's clear that you believe they are, and I disagree . That's just politics.


@Verbose: Interesting stuff... I would wonder whether such secrecy would re-emerge if patents were abolished. From what you've said, it seems to me that inventors will always have a desire to protect their work, and if the law doesn't provide that, then they'll take matters into their own hands.

 

[Ecofarm]

I want the contamination of natural DNA to be as inefficient as possible, so I am pro-IPP with regard to GMOs.

I would be anti-IPP in regard to GMOs, if their use was restricted to laboratories.

 

[Brighteye]

@Verbose: Interesting stuff... I would wonder whether such secrecy would re-emerge if patents were abolished. From what you've said, it seems to me that inventors will always have a desire to protect their work, and if the law doesn't provide that, then they'll take matters into their own hands.

I had thought of mentioning this possibility to people who are keen to remove patents.
If people aren't allowed to make money from their patents, they either won't bother inventing, or they'll use a better system for keeping what's theirs. That is, they'll just keep it a secret and no-one will be able to improve apon it. Instead of companies putting effort into patents and legal actions, we'll have more private armies, corporate espionage and physical deletion/theft of data storage.
We might also have to sign contracts for every drug or invention we use, in the same way that we do for software, promising not to reverse engineer a machine or identify the compounds in a drug tablet. This will enforce a patent-like effect whether we want one or not.
Less developed nations still won't get drugs because the drugs will still be expensive and because without patents to protect the drugs from being copied, companies will be even more keen to prevent their drugs going to places where analysis and copying might take place.

 

[GinandTonic]

Mise IP dates back five or six hundred years.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

We might also have to sign contracts for every drug or invention we use, in the same way that we do for software, promising not to reverse engineer a machine or identify the compounds in a drug tablet. This will enforce a patent-like effect whether we want one or not.

I don't have to sign anything of the sort for software. What sort of place do you live in that you have to do that?

 

[illram]

^^^ Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he means clickwrap licenses. Clicking "I agree" before installing stuff and so on.

 

[Bill3000]

I don't have to sign anything of the sort for software. What sort of place do you live in that you have to do that?

EULAs ?

 

[GinandTonic]

EULAs ?

But it doesnt matter a jot what the EULA says. Common law holds reasonable usage. The contract may require you to paint your arse blue and wistle the Marseillaise, but it really doesnt signify.

 

[EdwardTking]

Large corporations are about control, greed and power.

Innovations come from open thinking.

Having corporates control innovators is a disaster.
The only thing worse is rigid communism or theocracy
because that closes down open thinking too.

Innovations still occur because individuals
persist in being imaginative.

The corporates spent decades developing proprietary protocols
that they could charge for, and yet we communicate via the
much more successful unpatented Internet

 

[Bill3000]

But it doesnt matter a jot what the EULA says. Common law holds reasonable usage. The contract may require you to paint your arse blue and wistle the Marseillaise, but it really doesnt signify.

I've seen bans in MMORPGs for reverse engineering precisely because such a thing was in the EULA.

 

[illram]

I would say that there are many other technologies and industries that the maxim does apply to (though this doesn't mean a blanket approach need be taken). Take the internet for example, of which Tim Berners Lee said the following, in 'Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web':

"[Patents present] a great stumbling block for Web Development. Developers are stalling their efforts in a given direction when they hear rumours that some company may have a patent that may involve the technology."

This climate, thick with patents and the threat of patent infringement suits, what is often refered to as a "patent thicket", is hardly condusive to innovation. Quite the contrary. It's actually discouraging innovation!

I'm not convinced. If a company is scared off because they "heard a rumor" of a patent somewhere then they aren't doing a very good job as a company. In that case you go out, look at the patent, and see if your technology is sufficiently different enough that it won't fall within the ambit of the patent. Patents are very specific and can often be worked around. If it's a big enough stumbling block, attack the patent.

Anyway, "the internet" is so broad. Developing what? Patents are too specific to speak in broad terms like that.

In all these cases, that maxim of the "public good" applies. Patents impede the dissemination and use of knowledge, which further innovation is built upon.

I just don't see the public good in making public a patent for, say, a new type of algorithm for an industrial robot that makes car doors. Also, the all-encompassing counter argument mentioned frequently in these discussions still applies: If there was no incentive to come up with a better algorithm because all your competitors could just use it, why bother coming up with a better algorithm? Just keep using the same old tired method and don't bother coming up with a cheaper, more efficient method that costs less. Wouldn't encouraging innovation that in turn lowers costs be a "public benefit?" Encouraging competition?

There is one other thing to add here: The time and money spent on filing patents, suits against patent infringement, strengthening a company's monopoly power through patents, and getting around other companies' patents, is all time and money diverted from innovation. This may seem like small beer, but so complex and heated is the patent field these days that it's quite a significant diversion. I wonder what the difference is between Microsoft's legal and R&D budgets.

Again, valid point, but in the modern business world legal fees are a fact of life. The Bar does a good job making sure everyone needs a lawyer. But I reiterate: what's the alternative? And is there one that applies to all fields? I don't think so. I also think public welfare arguments fail or at least become less convincing once you leave the medical field.

 

[EdwardTking]

Why should we force someone to give up their property rights in the name of someone else's welfare?

This is what the slave owners and traders argued.

 

[illram]

But it doesnt matter a jot what the EULA says. Common law holds reasonable usage. The contract may require you to paint your arse blue and wistle the Marseillaise, but it really doesnt signify.

It's not a decided issue in the US whether shrinkwrap licenses are valid, but in some States they have been conclusively determined to be binding. (Shrinkwrap = license agreements you must adhere to before installing but which you can't practically read before purchase, i.e. you don't see it till you unwrap it and install it hence the term "shrinkwrap." Common to all software you buy at the store.) EULAs you agree to prior to purchase are most certainly valid and binding contracts, such as online sales or downloads of software where you agree before purchase.

"Common law" varies from state to state. I'm also not sure what you mean by "reasonable usage?"

And... we are now delving into copyright issues, not just patent issues.

 

[EdwardTking]

The market requires property before we can have a market, or else no-one will have anything to trade in the market.

There is no market in air. That is because no one owns it.

Whooaaahy. Capitalism has missed a trick here. Got to fix it.

So in the interests of creating a market in air,
we must introduce atmospheric rights.

The government auctions air. (Sure helps them pay for the deficit: !!).

Corporates buy air and sell it to individuals (at a profit: !!).

Futures traders can buy and sell air option in cubic hectares (at a profit!!)

Manufacturers make air meters (at a profit!!) that are (at a profit !!)
fitted to individuals by service providers. Bailiffs can switch off the
air of defaulters (at a profit !!) or take bribes (at a profit !!).

The ICT industry can sell (at a profit !!)products to support the process.

And the lawyers can sue about air contracts and air rights (at a profit).

And the would be CEOs, lawyers, traders etc can defend air rights on
CFC, because they hope one day to realise the American dream by
becoming air millionaires by suggesting that any who believe in the
heretical doctrine of free air are pinko communist unamerican anarchists.

 

[Rambuchan]

Ram,

Amazingly you may agree here with me. What would you think of a patent system for pharmacuticals that would auction off any newly patented drug that is effective (per whatever reg organization we agree). However, the catch is that every X% of the time, the government would buy the patent at the second highest bid price (this is a second price double blind auction which is the best kind of auction to maximize revenue for the auctioneer) and release it as a generic for all?

I don't know why you're running it by me. I am, after all, "awfully confused".

But seriously, it's not a bad idea, especially with Ayatollah So's addendum. The presence of a government guarantee the majority of the time would provide security and incentive. Also, there is something familiar about the scheme you outline. Haven't you mentioned it before in another context?

---

Here's another idea to throw into the ring:

An Innovation Fund.

This is specifically designed for pharmaceuticals, and with a view to developing countries' development, but can be applied elsewhere. And it's not meant to be a complete replacement of the current system, but rather an addition to spur innovation in more useful directions.

Anyway, the fund backs a prize system, in which researchers are rewarded for the value of their innovations. Those making important discoveries in treating widespread and socially costly diseases, like AIDS, cancer, tuberculosis and malaria, would get bigger rewards. And they would have to be big rewards to be effective.

Under this system, drugs can be supplied generically - at cost - to those suffering from the disease, whilst the innovators are still remunerated admirably from the fund. This would benefit both the developing countries' populations in the obvious ways, but also the developed countries, whose citizens would benefit from the improved, more socially useful, knowledge.

This would get us around the currently quite useless scenario in which pharma firms spend far more resources on developing (and patenting) cosmetic products like those treating hair loss and erectile disfunction than on products that actually save lives.

edit: Something else I forgot to mention about this is that it would be a more transparent and direct way to give aid than the huge wastage we currently have. Developed countries, rather than giving millions upon millions in aid, and worrying whether and where it will be spent, can rest assured that the money is going to what they intend. It would be guaranteed to be well spent. This also saves on all those ridiculously complicated and expensive transparency programmes that the World Bank currently backs, the efficacy of which is somewhat debatable.

 

[Rambuchan]

Large corporations are about control, greed and power.

Innovations come from open thinking.

Having corporates control innovators is a disaster.
The only thing worse is rigid communism or theocracy
because that closes down open thinking too.

Innovations still occur because individuals
persist in being imaginative.

The corporates spent decades developing proprietary protocols
that they could charge for, and yet we communicate via the
much more successful unpatented Internet

Aye. One thing worth adding here, partly in response to one of Mise's points, is that there are many out there who innovate and are not incentivised by cash. In academia, for example, innovators are typically spurred on by the praise of their peers. At least all the academics I know are. Much the same can be said of say web development. Those who come up with a cool idea and sell it on for megabucks are the atypical, and more noticeable, tip of the iceberg.

 

[Brighteye]

This is what the slave owners and traders argued.

But not only slave owners and traders. It's still a reasonable question. What rights is a patent infringing that makes it so diabolical?
Slavery goes against the desire that every human legally living in this country be a citizen, with the rights and responsibilities that go with it.
Do people have a right to good health? How come we happily allow people to wander around with asthma, obesity, hypertension, arthritis etc.? We're infringing their rights simply because they exist?
Is their right to good health more important than our laws guaranteeing property?
Is it more important than our laws forbidding discrimination?
Or is it only discrimination when it's against someone with whom you can easily sympathise? When it's the bourgois middle classes who can just about afford drugs, screw them. Let them pay for the cost of developing drugs to treat everyone else.
Would you rather we treated people unequally, and happily ignored property rights if someone benefitted from this, or we stuck to our principles and said that although regrettable, we've decided that we need more innovation, or these drugs wouldn't be around at all, so we won't order people to produce their products at below retail value.

It's like Mugabe ordering shopkeepers to sell at a certain value! Look what happened there. Only perhaps it's more as though he'd just ordered them to sell at that value to his party members. It still wouldn't be pretty, and people would still consider it stupid and unfair.

 

[GinandTonic]

You say life and health are less important than freedom and citizenship.

Myself I wouldnt want to have to make the choice, and if I did I would want to be alive as a slave rather than dead as a free man.