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

The Case Against Patents (2013)

pubs.aeaweb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 140 posts

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#121

Post by thayne »

jordigh wrote: post #9

I never thought that the case for patents was to increase productivity. I always thought that their purpose was to eliminate trade secrets: people are going to invent stuff whether you want to or not, but without patents, they'll take the secrets to the grave. My favourite patent of all time is Michael Jackson's smooth criminal patent: https://mashable.com/2015/03/28/michael-jackson-shoe-patent/... This is the patent…

But the reason to eliminate trade secrets is to increase innovation, because other innovators can build on the released information to make new innovations. But in practice, at least in the us, that isn't what happens. Patents are often difficult difficult to reproduce They are in effect so long it isn't worth creating derivative works unless you have significant negotiating power (usually as a corporation), because then licensing your patent requires also licensing the original patent. And in some ways it is worse than trade secrets, because even if you reverse engineer a product, you can't make your own version without paying royalties.

I suppose one benefit of patents is to reduce incentives for corporate espianage.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#122

Post by jimmydddd »

throwaway37585 wrote: post #91
jimmydddd wrote: post #80

Question for anti-patent folks. Do you like a system where Chinese companies just copy products listed on Amazon and sell them for less?

Yes?

Fair enough. I think it would promote copying instead of inventing. Not sure how that ends.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#123

Post by jnmd »

jordigh wrote: post #9

I never thought that the case for patents was to increase productivity. I always thought that their purpose was to eliminate trade secrets: people are going to invent stuff whether you want to or not, but without patents, they'll take the secrets to the grave. My favourite patent of all time is Michael Jackson's smooth criminal patent: https://mashable.com/2015/03/28/michael-jackson-shoe-patent/... This is the patent…

Glad to see your edit. They also point out the theoretical backing for patents not having this functionality: if a trade secret is expected to stay a secret longer than a patent lasts, companies don't file patents (why would they?) They themselves admit some holes here, but cite a general consensus that patents fail to act this way, both empirically and theoretically, in most cases.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#124

Post by dnautics »

gowld wrote: post #106
dnautics wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the incentive on the first group to not just say oh it didn't work and then do their own implementation later?

Ban those people from doing that. Now I'm curious if patent officers have ever been fired, sued, or prosecuted for profiting from the information in a rejected or granted patent.

How do you prove that's been done? You have to hire even more experts to review the reviewers, it's experts all the way down!!

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#125

Post by notlob »

toasterlovin wrote: post #120
notlob wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

UPenn and Novartis brought Kymriah to market and Kite brought Yescarta to market. Universities can be great for discovery and sponsored research, but they are not leading the work needed to get to market and they are certainly not funding it. Universities efforts are the visible tip of the iceberg, pharma efforts are the bulk under the surface.

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#126

Post by toasterlovin »

notlob wrote: post #125
toasterlovin wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

UPenn and Novartis brought Kymriah to market and Kite brought Yescarta to market. Universities can be great for discovery and sponsored research, but they are not leading the work needed to get to market and they are certainly not funding it. Universities efforts are the visible tip of the iceberg, pharma efforts are the bulk under the surface.

Thanks for the info. My comment was mostly coming from a place of having read articles like this about how antibiotics don’t really make money for pharmaceutics companies:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/01/02/antibiotics-ar...

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#127

Post by neilwilson »

Interesting that many commenters use the 'make an idea public' argument for patents. However if reinvention and rediscovery of an idea doesn't happen that often then you why would you need patents anyway? Penn and Teller's Fool Us shows demonstrate that very few magic tricks are undiscoverable to other magicians. So just hire one to work it out. That increases the value of magicians and decreases the value of patent lawyers, patent reviewers, patent writers and the patent trade. Surely that is a good thing?

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#128

Post by bdowling »

jordigh wrote: post #9

I never thought that the case for patents was to increase productivity. I always thought that their purpose was to eliminate trade secrets: people are going to invent stuff whether you want to or not, but without patents, they'll take the secrets to the grave. My favourite patent of all time is Michael Jackson's smooth criminal patent: https://mashable.com/2015/03/28/michael-jackson-shoe-patent/... This is the patent…

Patents and trade secrets are tools for two different types of IP. If you've got a thing you can keep hidden, then you keep it as a trade secret. The quintessential example is a secret recipe like the formula for Coca-Cola or Google's PageRank. If you've got a thing you can't keep hidden, for example because it gets shipped to a customer and can be reverse-engineered, then you can apply for a patent on it.

Regarding a patent revealing trade secrets, an applicant really has no incentive to do so. A patent only needs to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention. That has been interpreted to mean without undue experimentation, meaning some experimentation may be necessary. [0]. And there is a requirement that a patent set out the "best mode" contemplated by the inventor, but a failure to do so doesn't result in the invalidation of the patent. [1].

[0] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html [1] https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2165.html

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#129

Post by anticensor »

jernfrost wrote: post #117

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.

Does the proposer also get compensation after a solution is found, or only the solver?

Re: The Case Against Patents (2013)

#130

Post by anticensor »

jimmydddd wrote: post #122
throwaway37585 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes?

Fair enough. I think it would promote copying instead of inventing. Not sure how that ends.

That would prevent unnecessary "innovations" to refresh IP. You cannot keep everything secret.
Post reply on HN