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

81–90 of 124 posts

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

#81

Post by PatentTroll »

cturner wrote: post #73
rauljara wrote: post #4

> The poster child for strong patent protection is usually the pharmaceutical industry, as drugs are easily copied and can cost upwards of a billion dollars to develop. Here, Boldrin and Levine admit that the government would likely need to step in. But rather than giving companies a legal monopoly over their formulas, the authors suggest we should modify the drug approval process to let makers start recouping their…

I'm a big fan of Boldrin/Levine but suspect they're wrong about this. The reason medical investigation is so expensive is because there's so much red tape around it in the form of approvals, and the convoluted systems health coverage in the developed world. It's a classic insiders' club. People got institutionalised into the culture, and then can swap between government and industry. There's no strong incentive for a…

But there is a reasonable expectation that a pill your doctor prescribes will not kill you (with few notable exceptions). This is a good thing. Who is better at safety, the "free market" or the government?

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

#82

Post by facundo_olano »

It's no news that patents and copyright obstruct the progress of science and society (nobody ever listents to Stallman?).

Now, acknowledging that is far from being enough to abolish them. The world revolves around companies making profit, it's naive to think that the government will agree to rule against the huge companies that currently benefit from those restrictions.

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

#83

Post by PatentTroll »

maked00 wrote: post #80

The fashion industry does quite well thank you WITHOUT patents. Check it out. No patents in fashion. The most you can do is copyright a logo and slap that on your product. The rest is open season, and we all are the richer for it. Patents only make lawyers rich at the expense of the rest of us (the 99%).

There is no meaningful comparison between the fashion industry and high technology. Keep in mind also that the fashion industry aggressively uses copyright, which last time I checked is also not too popular. That's why a lot of designer goods have a logo plastered all over them. If we abolished patents, there would be a short time span where everyone would prosper, but then eventually it would become clear that nobody is doing basic R&D, because it would be stolen by a competitor immediately. Also, I assure you there is no lawyer conspiracy. 99% of lawyers are in the 99%.

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

#84

Post by PatentTroll »

roryokane wrote: post #52
nancyhua wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And what's the efficacy of copyright, trademark, design rights, and trade secrets in protecting a new process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? The first three are not applicable, and the fourth may protect innovation but comes at the expense of no public disclosure.

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

#85

Post by facundo_olano »

shadowmint wrote: post #44
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…

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…

It's merely conventional that humans can claim the property of ideas. Nobody can "steal" an idea, so there's no way of ripping off the creator.

The notion of intellectual property is now widespread because is the source of profit for companies, but it's not "natural" as the property of material stuff.

Apart from that, if you think that the current laws protect the creators from third parties profiting with their ideas, how do you think Microsoft got big?

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

#86

Post by planckscnst »

PatentTroll wrote: post #84
roryokane wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And what's the efficacy of copyright, trademark, design rights, and trade secrets in protecting a new process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? The first three are not applicable, and the fourth may protect innovation but comes at the expense of no public disclosure.

Look at ARM. They license design rights and they're pretty successful.

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

#87

Post by ryanwaggoner »

jcroll wrote: post #61
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…

How about an educated electorate that votes and votes good representatives into office who will diligently represent the interests of their informed electorate? Read through that sentence again, let it soak in, you will begin to see everything that is wrong with the American political system.

I think it's very tough to make the case that America is uniquely bad in this regard. Do you seriously think that Europe is a political utopia that elects people who only do the best for citizens, or that entrenched interests haven't captured public power and funds??

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

#88

Post by ryanwaggoner »

bluedanieru wrote: post #56
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.

This is as useful as saying "Fix the problem."

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

#90

Post by refurb »

barrkel wrote: post #69
refurb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that the numbers thrown around are often a lot of hand waving. However, let me make a few points few points. 1. Check out the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. They calculate the cost to create a new drug and their methodology is very transparent. http://csdd.tufts.edu/research/research_milestones 2. You can do a simple sniff test on these numbers. Simply call up a CRO that runs clinical trials…

Do you think Big Pharma has an interest in keeping these costs high to prevent competition?

I guess that raises a few questions.

1) How do they keep them high? They are buying these services from a third-party.

2) These cost of clinical trials is increasing because FDA evidence requirements are getting stricter and stricter. Back in the 1950s, you could get a drug approved in under 2 years. Now? It's more like 5-8 years. Of course, you end up with much safer drugs this way.

Post reply on HN