Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

m.theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 124 posts

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#51

Post by panabee »

rustynails77 wrote: post #19
panabee wrote: post #6

The patent system somehow has morphed from shield to sword. Protecting inventors is one path toward innovation, but it should be a byproduct of maximizing innovation and not the end state. If the objective of the patent system is to foster innovation, then it should grant patents only if they are necessary for innovation, i.e., innovation wouldn't reasonably occur otherwise. Amazon's one-click patent versus drug pate…

I like that idea, and I believe it rings true with most responsible people. However, it's difficult to measure. As an example, in the recent Apple v/s Samsung, if it weren't for Apple, we would still be dealing with shitty Nokia, Samsung and Sony Ericsson phones with crap OSes, no decent applications, and the phones would be anything but smart - because there was no need to improve. Once Apple made everyone lift thei…

Thanks, rustynails77. I also agree it's very difficult to measure, which is why it fails to qualify as the optimal solution.

There is no magical solution, but the contours of the ideal system will account for the capital requirements of an invention. Areas with low capital requirements, such as "slide to unlock" and "one-click buying," should not warrant patent protection.

Not because they require less ingenuity, but because even absent patent protection, companies would still continue to differentiate through new features and ideas.

It's very similar to music and movies. Artists continue to introduce new sounds and new films even though success spawns a host of copycats.

Would Apple cease innovation on software features -- like "slide to unlock" -- if they weren't granted patent protection? I think it's reasonable to assume not because of the relatively small capital requirements and because of their passion to advance technology.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#52

Post by roryokane »

nancyhua wrote: post #50
shadowmint wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember theres a difference between getting rid of patents and getting rid of intellectual property. I don't think anyone is serious about suggesting we get rid of intellectual property; if you're create something, there should be protections to stop people ripping off your stuff and selling it without paying you for it. It's patents that are the problem. Patents let you capture an idea and prevent people from creat…

How do you get rid of patents without getting rid of intellectual property? Do you mean setting up better infrastructure for licensing?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property, types of intellectual property other than patents include copyright, trademarks, industrial design rights, and trade secrets. You could get rid of patents while keeping those other types of intellectual property.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#53

Post by panabee »

TheCondor wrote: post #35
tetomb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Would the innovation have happened if Apple hadn't driven it? Not any time soon." I am fascinated by this statement. What evidence do you have to support it?

The entire mobile industry pre-iPhone? This is and endless argument, you either acknowledge that they pushed it forward or you don't but there wasn't a significant application platform, touch was nearly nonexistent and even dismissed by RIM, and while many of these things might be dismissed as obvious, Apple made it stick and they beat the entire current crop of competitors to the market. Everything is easy once you'…

I don't think the argument is whether Apple pushed the industry forward. They absolutely did.

The question is, if they knew no patents would get awarded for software features like slide-to-lock or gesture control, would they still have introduced the iPhone?

I believe they would have, but it would be great to hear your thoughts if you disagree.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#54

Post by ryanwaggoner »

So the argument here isn't that a patent system is inherently bad; you could have a patent system that provides a net win for society. But over time, entrenched interests will find ways to twist the system to their advantage, at the expense of society at large.

Let's say this is true; how is this different from any government action in the marketplace? From education to finance to healthcare, we're confronted with problems that have may have good theoretical solutions by government, but the reality is that our solutions will eventually devolve to rent-seeking and regulatory capture by powerful entrenched interests. I have yet to hear a good solution to this problem other than severely limiting the ability of the government to interfere with markets in the first place.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#55

Post by noonespecial »

rayiner wrote: post #49
zmmmmm wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. One of the biggest risks I would see in a startup these days is that the moment you start to be successful or even just get decent funding there's a decent chance you will be patent trolled out of existence.

I assume you've quantified that statistical probability to support your declaration that there's a "decent chance"?

The whole point is that its very difficult to quantify. The purpose of government, law, and indeed perhaps civilization itself is to reduce the amount of random, unquantifiable risks in daily life.

That's whats so bad about patent trolling. Its just so uncivilized.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#56

Post by bluedanieru »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #54

So the argument here isn't that a patent system is inherently bad; you could have a patent system that provides a net win for society. But over time, entrenched interests will find ways to twist the system to their advantage, at the expense of society at large. Let's say this is true; how is this different from any government action in the marketplace? From education to finance to healthcare, we're confronted with pr…

Stop electing assholes to public office.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#57

Post by jandrewrogers »

lionhearted wrote: post #8

Frequently overlooked -- American companies are huge net-exporters of IP, IP licenses, and IP-protected stuff. Take the recent Apple/Samsung fiasco, for instance. That's a net cash transfer of over $1B from the South Korean economy to the American economy. Maybe $2B to $3B total when accounting for all the factors. Is that good? No, it's disgraceful, actually. But good luck convincing American legislators of some abs…

There is definitely an element of US self-interest. The US invests a disproportionate amount of capital into R&D relative to its GDP compared to other countries and also reaps a disproportionate result from that R&D investment (i.e. US R&D investments tend to have a higher return per dollar invested compared to most countries).

I have a strong self-interest in making sure effective R&D happens: computers, biomedical, etc. I don't care where that investment happens for the most part. In terms of maximizing R&D output for the currency invested, US has been the clear leaders for a long time. I am less concerned with why the US is producing so much high-value R&D than with why so few other countries are producing anything comparable. A few European countries do produce similar results on a per capita basis but the tend to be outliers with tiny populations that don't add up to much in absolute terms.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#58

Post by fauigerzigerk »

I'm unconvinced by their pharma argument. Some industries need patent protection. My preferred solution would be for the patent office to set different time limits for different industries, depending on the length of the innovation/commercialization cycle in that particular field.

So if it takes 10 years to develop a new drug and have it approved, give them 10 years of patent protection. If it takes a year to invent and perfect some user interface idea, give them a year's worth of patent protection.

Don't set the time limit on a case by case basis or everybody would claim to have thought about it for 30 years before it came to fruition.

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#59

Post by rayiner »

noonespecial wrote: post #55
rayiner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you've quantified that statistical probability to support your declaration that there's a "decent chance"?

The whole point is that its very difficult to quantify. The purpose of government, law, and indeed perhaps civilization itself is to reduce the amount of random, unquantifiable risks in daily life. That's whats so bad about patent trolling. Its just so uncivilized .

zm didn't say it was difficult to quantify. He said there was a "decent chance" of being sued. The implication is that he has quantified it and that quantity amounts to a "decent chance."

Re: The Case for Abolishing Patents (Yes, All of Them)

#60

Post by 6ren »

lionhearted wrote: post #8

Frequently overlooked -- American companies are huge net-exporters of IP, IP licenses, and IP-protected stuff. Take the recent Apple/Samsung fiasco, for instance. That's a net cash transfer of over $1B from the South Korean economy to the American economy. Maybe $2B to $3B total when accounting for all the factors. Is that good? No, it's disgraceful, actually. But good luck convincing American legislators of some abs…

The 1850-1880 campaign to abolish patents:

> Abolitionist lobby faded away mid-1870s, as most European countries retreated to tariff protection (prompted by influx of cheap N. American grain and severe economic downturn). https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.usc.es/epip/do...

Post reply on HN