21–30 of 172 posts
Also I suspect most innovation are being done outside of papers, especially when you have "reviewer 2" ready to be nitpicky at every minor detail, so you make it more bland and maybe skip one juicy part or another
Take any revolutionary discovery. Compare making it freely available to anyone, or limiting the availability to those holding the patents. EDIT: And perhaps more importantly give people the freedom to innovate on top versus stopping anyone who does. Shouldn't the former always be more disruptive of the status quo? I can imagine this is an oversimplification though so I'm open to hearing counterintuitive examples where the opposite is true.
And to be clear, either way I'm not saying this is good or bad in and of itself - in some cases it might slow down essential improvements, in others it might be good to have speed limits for change so that things don't break.
I blame the grant funding process. What gets published is what gets funded when written up as a grant proposal. What gets written up as a grant proposal is what is called for by grant funding agencies for their own research initiatives. If you want disruptive science, fund it then. That's all everyone wants to do in science, but the bills need to be payed somehow, so you play the game the funding agencies want you to…
I get that in this context "patents" should be seen as the announcement of a new innovation, a surrogate of the innovation itself if you will, but setting that aside for a moment I'm struggling to imagine how patents could ever do anything but slow down disruption. Take any revolutionary discovery. Compare making it freely available to anyone, or limiting the availability to those holding the patents. EDIT: And perha…
I get that in this context "patents" should be seen as the announcement of a new innovation, a surrogate of the innovation itself if you will, but setting that aside for a moment I'm struggling to imagine how patents could ever do anything but slow down disruption. Take any revolutionary discovery. Compare making it freely available to anyone, or limiting the availability to those holding the patents. EDIT: And perha…
You could argue that there is more economic incentive to invent new things as discoveries are worth more if you alone have the right to use them. This in turn could lead to more investments in research that lead to more inventions that increase disruption.
And you can see this play out in the history of invention. For example, Edison stopped other people from doing research on the light bulb. Meanwhile the Netherlands was a country without IP laws at the time so Phillips quickly ended up producing the superior and cheaper product. No patent laws, bigger disruption. Similarly the Wright brothers were notorious for holding back aviation with their patents.
I get that in this context "patents" should be seen as the announcement of a new innovation, a surrogate of the innovation itself if you will, but setting that aside for a moment I'm struggling to imagine how patents could ever do anything but slow down disruption. Take any revolutionary discovery. Compare making it freely available to anyone, or limiting the availability to those holding the patents. EDIT: And perha…
- There are as many revolutionary discoveries with and without patents
- Without patents, discoveries would be freely avalaible
As far as I know, two (related) arguments are generally made for patents:
- Patents create an indirect (by preventing the competition from using your invention) or direct (by licensing it) monetary return to innovation, potentially leading to more innovation
- If a company wants competitors not to copy their innovation, they can 1. keep it secret or 2. disclose it and patent it; without patent the choice is between 1. keep it secret or 2. disclose it and have everybody copy them. In this case, patents lead to more innovation being made freely avalaible (with a delay!).
Whether patents lead to more or less innovation is, as far as I know, contentious.
I get that in this context "patents" should be seen as the announcement of a new innovation, a surrogate of the innovation itself if you will, but setting that aside for a moment I'm struggling to imagine how patents could ever do anything but slow down disruption. Take any revolutionary discovery. Compare making it freely available to anyone, or limiting the availability to those holding the patents. EDIT: And perha…
You make two assumptions: - There are as many revolutionary discoveries with and without patents - Without patents, discoveries would be freely avalaible As far as I know, two (related) arguments are generally made for patents: - Patents create an indirect (by preventing the competition from using your invention) or direct (by licensing it) monetary return to innovation, potentially leading to more innovation - If a…
I explicitly don't: I mentioned the patent stops others from innovating on top of the patent. The necessity of patents to be public is one I had not considered though, being a force against trade secrets is a good counterpoint.
> Whether patents lead to more or less innovation is, as far as I know, contentious.
Honestly, I really have trouble accepting this. Not that I have an answer, but with the idea that researchers haven't been able to find some sensible way of measuring this by now. I already mentioned the example of light bulbs. Surely there are enough similar historical scenarios available to analyze where one can make use of global differences in IP laws and other variables to simulate control groups?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could argue that there is more economic incentive to invent new things as discoveries are worth more if you alone have the right to use them. This in turn could lead to more investments in research that lead to more inventions that increase disruption.
I know that that has been one argument in favor of patents since forever. But that ignores the part where competing parties are not freely allowed to build on another person's patent, which is essential for making good improvements. And you can see this play out in the history of invention. For example, Edison stopped other people from doing research on the light bulb. Meanwhile the Netherlands was a country without…
On the other hand it is also case for more innovation due to necessity, e.g. his patent on beam connection to a shaft (linear-to-rotary movement) required others to come up with a different solutions (e.g. sun and planet gear).
- Grant funding - Tenure requirements - Job duties (both requirements and limitations) - Elimination of corporate skunk works like PARC - Credentialism - A "Pain point" focus would tend to be more incremental than truly disruptive On the good side there may be some decrease of disruptive inventions and discoveries because we are also focusing on eliminating the externalities of current and previous inventions and dis…
My mind is genuinely struggling...
Certainly not Curie, Einstein, Fleming worked in a hospital.
Maybe the problem is...
Undergraduates!