The Case Against Patents (2013) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#111

Post by gowld » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 11:11 PM UTC

pitaj wrote: post #104

js8 wrote: post #22

I am against (all) patents on the following grounds: The article talks about first-mover advantage.. it seems to me that the case for or against patents depends on how you model it. If you model it as a single-shot prisoner's dilemma, then without patents, there is no incentive to make result of research public. This is a classical argument in favor of patents. On the other hand, if you model it as a many-rounds pris…

IP is fundamentally different from property as me know it. Something is your property if you have exclusive control over it. Since IP is not exclusive (two people can have the same thought), it is not property. Patents are the worse form of IP, since it is possible to accidentally infringe on them. Copyright is almost as bad, especially at current timespans , and because it has such a chilling effect on the internet…

If I hang out in your house and borrow your computer when you aren't home, I'm not depriving you of anything. Yet your property rights can be wielded against me. Why?

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#112

Post by tracker1 » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 11:22 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #14

snarf21 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I think that all patents aren't created equal. We'd have less issues if software patents were only valid for like 5 years. You still have protection but you get rid of a lot of the trolls and the IBMs of the world having 10K patents. For more physical things, the protection can be longer since it takes longer to recoup your investment.

> I think that all patents aren't created equal. We'd have less issues if software patents were only valid for like 5 years. And we'd have even less issues if software patents were only valid for 0 years (i.e. not exist).

I would rather they front load the cost for the application fee, reduce the actual license fee. And then hire reviewers with a mindset to reject if it doesn't clearly describe how to recreate a process properly, or isn't unique or non-obvious. I think another extension to the standard for patent-ability should be does this patent make something less effective (as is often the case with extension patents).

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#113

Post by philipkglass » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 11:23 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #108

philipkglass wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mostly read patents about chemistry, materials, and electronics. I find a lot of older patents to be straightforward and informative. Occasionally I will run across a 21st century patent that is as readable, but they're a lot rarer now. If I had to estimate when the transition happened, I'd guess around the 1980s, maybe late 1970s. Weirdly, this is also about the time that academic publications appeared to decline…

That's because the PTO is granting garbage patents, even in the case of legitimately patentable inventions. It a main problem with patents today (along with the lifetime of a patent which was originally chosen during a much slower time for humanity's intellectual advancement).

You inspired me to look for US patent grants by year, which brought me to this table:

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.ht...

In 1963 the USPTO granted patents to 54% of applications. In 2015 the rate was actually slightly lower (52%). But as "The Case Against Patents" notes, the total volume of applications has soared. I kind of expected to see some sort of upward inflection around 1980 (Bayh-Dole Act) but didn't spot one by eye.

The growth rate just in this century is astonishing; there were "only" 288,811 applications in 1999. Total applications per year were below 500,000 as recently as 2009. They're now well over 600,000/year.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#114

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 11:41 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #71

derf_ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, let's see what the fine article has to say about these things. 1) "In less than 30 years, the flow of patents more than quadrupled. By contrast, neither innovation nor research and development expenditure nor factor productivity have exhibited any particular upward trend." In other words, more patents does not appear to encourage people to splurge on fundamental research in aggregate. But it gets worse, "The c…

> So at least we've identified where some of the money being brought in from all of these monopolies is going (it isn't to the scientists and engineers). You're not trying to minimize litigation costs, but rather maximize R&D investment net of litigation costs. So the question is, if competitors could quickly copy the results of R&D efforts, would R&D investment be more or less than 14% lower? Also, it's not like lit…

> The idea that alternative monetization strategies are workable in the large scale is almost self-refuting. Patents don't preclude you from developing technology and releasing it into the public domain, so long as you get there first. But it seems like companies motivated by patent protection consistently "get there first." That is itself a validation of the incentive structure created by patents.

There is a baseline level of research which will be done even without the patent system, e.g. because Verizon would rather spend fifty million dollars improving radio efficiency than an extra billion dollars in a spectrum auction. If you provide a patent system on top of that, they take the patent even if it wasn't necessary for them to do the research. That isn't proof the patent grant was the incentive for that research, only that it was the incentive to apply for the patent on it.

If you want the real numbers you need some way to distinguish those cases from the ones where the invention wouldn't occur without the patent grant.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#115

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 11:52 PM UTC

pnw_hazor wrote: post #97

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of creating artificial exclusivity, enforced by the state against natural human learning/discovering capabilities, is even higher.

Patents cover stuff that is already invented and put into public use. How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Patents may stop someone from on purpose or accidentally copying someone else invention, but that isn't stopping discovery.

People spend resources trying to discover things because they want to use them. If it turns out that when you go to use your invention, a patent troll jumps out from under the bridge to shake you down, people will be less inclined to spend resources trying to invent new things to use and instead just stick to the status quo.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#116

Post by ggg9990 » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 12:09 AM UTC

wtdo wrote: post #40

jpadkins wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the costs of your system are probably way more than the value created for society via patents.

I agree. I probably should have stressed that more in the initial disclaimer. It is possible (though, again, unlikely) that it might not be as bad as it initially sounds simply due to fewer bad patents being submitted if the submitter knows the patent application would go through such an extensive process. There'd be a lot fewer vague patent applications and a lot fewer applications for stuff that's obvious. I genera…

If patents are ended, that’s pretty much the end of >95% of small-molecule pharmaceuticals.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#117

Post by jernfrost » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 12:10 AM UTC

I think patents should be replaced with prizes. People can propose problems which needs solving and then private individuals and/or government can pledge money to donate to whoever finds a solution to the problem first. However the winner doesn't own the idea. It must be made public.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#118

Post by jernfrost » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 12:12 AM UTC

kotharia wrote: post #98

The pharmaceutical industry is usually given as the prime example of an industry where patent protection is necessary; however, this is far from obvious. See Robin Feldman's book Drug Wars (there is an interview with her about it here: http//www.econtalk.org/robin-feldman-on-drug-patents-generics-and-drug-wars/)

I would solve it with a combination of public funded research and prizes awarded to those solving important medical needs.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#119

Post by notlob » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 12:17 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #94

Retric wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs are trivial to reverse engineer vs develop. So, without patents their would be zero incentive for private drug R&D funding. It's very clear that patents are required by the drug industry before they will invest in Research or as often happens buy companies that have done research. Now, if we give up all private R&D we could still manufacture existing drugs at much lower prices. But, turning over all drug resear…

FWIW, we will probably need to figure out an effective way to fund non-commercial drug research anyway, since pharmaceutical companies are really only interested in certain classes of drugs (mostly drugs that treat symptoms of chronic conditions, rather than drugs which permanently solve diseases or drugs which treat short lived conditions).

This is an inaccurate portrayal of the pharmaceutical industry. Take CAR-T as one obvious counterexample.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#120

Post by toasterlovin » Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 1:10 AM UTC

notlob wrote: post #119

toasterlovin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, we will probably need to figure out an effective way to fund non-commercial drug research anyway, since pharmaceutical companies are really only interested in certain classes of drugs (mostly drugs that treat symptoms of chronic conditions, rather than drugs which permanently solve diseases or drugs which treat short lived conditions).

This is an inaccurate portrayal of the pharmaceutical industry. Take CAR-T as one obvious counterexample.

I’m very open to being wrong here, but for the specific example of CAR-T, Wikipedia mentions that it was initially developed by researchers at a university in Israel. So not the pharmaceutical industry.