The Economist has a very good survey on the patent system. I haven’t yet made up my mind what I think of patents. I appreciate the fact that the product of your mind ought to be your property. I am wary of giving the government the right to determine if something is patentable. I also think that in many cases, (especially software and business process patents) 20 years is too long.
But then, I don’t agree with the argument that the patent system unambiguously hurts innovation or unambiguously benefits the big guys. The survey makes this point – the ability to patent enables the separation of the inventor from those who commercialise it. Without the liquidity provided by the patent system, only the big companies who could quickly commercialise inventions would benefit from inventions.
Anyway, the survey is worth reading also for this article which talks of how Indian and Chinese companies have started to take halting steps towards patenting their innovations.
But… except for the first article, the whole survey is for premium subscribers only. If you want to read the survey, and if I know you please leave a comment to this post asking for access.
I used to be a regular reader of the economist and appreciated their nuanced views about patents. I haven’t read the survey but I think I know what is in there.
A good example is the difference between music and movies. The consumption patterns for both are different and hence deserve different copyright treatment. Patents per se do impede innovation but on balance I think they do encourage innovation though not everyone who is an inventor is motivated by patents. Without patents innovation would happen, but at a slower pace.
I think the onus of protecting one’s innovation should lie on the individual and not the society. I should be able to do what I can – that would include an attempt to reverse engineer. Whether the pace of innovation quickens or not not is immaterial here.
I think the onus of protecting one’s innovation should lie on the individual and not the society.
Let’s take the same example with your house. Is the onus on protecting it completely on you? No, it is important for you that society recognizes your right to your property.
I think the question of whether patents impedes innovation is quite socialist. How is it different from the question of whether redistribution of wealth to all improves society or not?
The thing that is different is that replicating these innovations has zero cost. Whereas you cannot replicate most other tangible assets at zero cost.
But from a freedom point of view, asking this question is unacceptable.
42,
Your analogy does not count because I actually believe protecting my house is also my responsibility.
Yes. You do know me. Only too well. Access
I had a thought about patents and intellectual property some time back. Wanted to blog about it, but that would have singularly increased the iq of my blog which is a bad thing. So I am putting it here.
A patent is what ensures competition and competition ensures that the overall quality of the product is bettered.
i havent read the survey but will definitely have a look at it.
as far as patents are concerned i feel that they bring with them monopoly which creates a lot of welfare loss prima facie to the producer and the consumer. although the producer makes higher profit per unit owing to his freedom to price his innovation, if one takes a wholistic view it makes more people worse off than otherwise.