

Economist: Would the world be better off with fewer patents? - ajb
http://www.economist.com/economist-asks/would-world-be-better-fewer-patents

======
steve8918
I like Bezos's suggestion of having shorter patents for software. 3-5 years is
enough to protect innovators, but not long enough to stifle further
innovation, and probably not long enough for patent trolls to purchase and
then sue people.

~~~
mikeash
How about exponentially increasing renewal fees? $1 for the first year, $2 for
the second, $4 for the first, etc. If the patent is valuable then the owner
can keep it going longer, but it will still become unsustainably expensive
before too long, and huge portfolios of long-lived patents would be
impractical.

~~~
danielweber
I once suggested this for copyright terms, but someone pointed out a big
problem: what is the unit that that "$1" fee covers?

I can write an entire book under 1 copyright, easily keeping it going for a
decade with your regime. But a photographer produces hundreds or thousands of
copyrighted works a year.

You might try doing your regime with the number of claims, and the company can
decide how many to keep fresh, but it then leads to weird edge-cases like
keeping a few things secret for now to patent later -- which is the opposite
of what the patent system intends. Patents encourage people to publish their
inventions for others to study, in exchange for limited exclusivity to market
and/or use their invention.

~~~
mikeash
Yeah, I don't think it works for copyrights, but patents already seem to have
this solved. There's already a set unit for them, and they already cost a
substantial amount of money (unlike copyright, which is currently free).

Keeping things secret now to patent them later is a problem, but no worse than
it is now, I think. The same incentives apply to the exponential scheme as to
the current hard limit. You'd keep the requirement to file within a certain
time of the first public reveal, so you'd have to move quickly if you wanted
to patent anything you were actually going to use.

------
sharkweek
I don't know if I'd necessarily say we'd be better off with fewer -- but I
think there should be some regulation on who is doing what with them.
Eliminating the ability for someone to squat on a patent with the sole
intention of suing "infringement" would be a great start.

~~~
rayiner
I agree some regulation is in order, but I think you have to carefully
distinguish squatting from legitimately transacting in patents. ARM is right
now a practicing entity. They do the design, which is their expertise, and
license their patents and other IP to companies who integrate and manufacture
processors. This is an example of a patent being used to facilitate a useful
division of labor. Now, what happens if ARM wants to get out of the business?
Could they sell their IP to a third party who doesn't want to design micro
processors, but just wants the right to receive the licensing revenue?

It's easy to define squatting in ways that prevent that, IMHO, legitimate
transaction.

~~~
ktizo
I would remove the right to transaction itself. If you don't want to collect
your own licence fees, you can always licence an agency to do it on your
behalf. I don't think a legally granted monopoly to inventors in order to
encourage invention should be a transferable asset, and the names on the
patent should all be sentient entities.

~~~
rayiner
Why?

I don't think the only, or even primary, value of patents is to encourage
invention. I think they're valuable for allowing a separation of concerns
between inventors and implementors. When you think of patents in that way, it
makes total sense for them to be treated as transferable assets.

~~~
ktizo
... _"I don't think the only, or even primary, value of patents is to
encourage invention."_...

I think it might be -

 _"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries."_

Nothing there about it being a transferable asset to be treated as property.
Is an exclusive right for a limited time for authors and inventors.

[edit] Otherwise it would presumably read: _"by securing for limited Times to
Companies and Investors the exclusive Right to the respective Writings and
Discoveries of Authors and Inventors."_ Which doesn't scan nearly as well.

------
nova
The world would be better with NO patents.

Copyright is more than enough for software, medical research should be
directly funded by the goverments (just like weapons manufacturers or big
public infrastructures), and the rest just on trade secrets.

We are now in a interconnected world, rich with information. Independent
reinvention is extremely easy. The risk of some genius taking his great,
great, unique discovery to the grave because of the lack of patents is tiny
compared with the economic, scientific and technological damage of this
constant hemorrhage of time, money and energy that is the patent system.

No more insurmountable entry barriers for entrepreneurs, no more monopolies,
no more trolls, no more unnecessary roundabouts to avoid using obvious
patents. The only one to lose would be the patent lawyers.

Forget the romantic fairy tale of the poor lonely inventor robbed of his great
idea by big business. Using patents in court is extremely expensive, he
couldn't afford them anyway. Patents are guns for big guys.

And no mention to the goodness of the free market. Patents are government-
granted monopolies. You couldn't be furthest from a free, competitive model of
an economy. Patents are not capitalism, they resemble more some feudal
privilege taken from the middle ages.

~~~
Tycho
What if you wanted to conduct medical research but the government wasn't
interested in funding you?

------
pjscott
The main article is here:

<http://www.economist.com/node/21561888>

------
knewter
So something that I think the courts have lost sight of is the purported
reason for patents in the first place. They exist to encourage innovators to
make their inventions public, so that knowledge will not be lost.

With something like 'pinch to zoom,' there is no WAY to benefit from that
'invention' without making it public. Consequently, how the hell is it
patentable?

------
aretiste
the title should be: would the world would be better off with fewer patent
trolls?

------
bpatrianakos
No. Don't ever ask a question in a headline again. Take a stand.

~~~
chc
It's a poll. It has to ask a question by definition. (On the other hand, I
have no idea why a poll was submitted as news.)

~~~
ktizo
Pharyngulation probably.

~~~
nitrogen
What is the origin of that term in this context? I just spent several minutes
(an eternity in Google/-pedia time) searching for definitions, and the best
answer I could infer from the results was that someone named their blog after
the pharyngula stage of embryonic development, and used their blog's
popularity to manipulate online polls. Am I close?

~~~
ktizo
<http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pharyngulate>

