

James Watt: Monopolist - kiba
http://mises.org/story/3280

======
kiba
This is an excerpt from the book, _Against Intellectual Monopoly_. You can
read more of this at
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

The book is free so please read it!

~~~
aoriste
I just started this book on friday!

------
dood
Very relevant is the phenomenon of simultaneous invention (which if correct
throws serious doubt on the usefulness of patents) discussed in a fascinating
Gladwell piece about Intellectual Ventures Laboratories. I'm far from a fan of
Gladwell, but this article is very interesting:

[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell/?currentPage=all)

~~~
_delirium
It's a broader philosophical issue in the history of ideas, also: when should
an inventor get credit for inventing something, and how much credit, and how
do we know? Some inventions were truly amazing insights, where if the inventor
hadn't come up with them, the world would probably have been without that
invention for decades, if it ever got it. But many inventors essentially
anticipate history by only a few months or even weeks: they get to an idea
that, given progress on subsidiary technologies, was getting to the point
where it was obvious to anyone in the field, but they get there _just_ ever-
so-slightly earlier than everyone else, so win the race, but don't really
change history much as a result.

------
radu_floricica
This makes me think of a more general principle: usually the people with
patents have more resources the the people without, so they have a bigger say
in how long patents are valid. Which means all else being equal patent terms
will always be longer then optimum.

Probably the best way to go around this is to have/create the political will
to deliberately level the playing field for newcomers instead of incumbents.

~~~
isleyaardvark
But patents themselves may be the best way to level the playing field for
newcomerts. The Mises article makes the case for patents being "unnecessary
evils, the relics of an earlier time", but they don't make the case for the
flip side.

Take the story of Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper
([http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A54564-2005Feb...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A54564-2005Feb25.html)). Granted, it took a while for him to get
a just resolution, but think about what would've happened if patents had been
considered an "unnecessary evil" and he had been unable to get one. Not only
would he have not gotten any reward for his creativity, but he likely wouldn't
have even met with the automakers. And why would he bother tinkering for years
to make these wipers when the automakers could just dismantle one, and use
their greater resources to copy it?

There are a lot of problems with the current patent system, but it should
still exist in some form.

~~~
radu_floricica
I never said they should not! Only that their duration will be negotiated in
favor of the incumbents - and they are the guys who'd usually profit from
longer terms.

------
yannis
If you visit London the Science Museum
[http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/motive_power/1861-46...](http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects/motive_power/1861-46.aspx)
has Boulton & Watt engine on display, which is worth a look. It is the oldest
surviving Watt beam engine to have survived almost complete and unaltered, and
was the first to be fitted with the centrifugal governor.

------
oldgregg
everything new is old again. great read, for those of us with a libertarian
persuasion mises.org has a ton of really fantastic articles.

