Re: Do patents really foster innovation?

From: Christian Weisgerber (naddy@mips.inka.de)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 10:38:52 MST

  • Next message: Stirling Westrup: "Re: FWD (SK) Fear Inside the Power Elite"

    Dickey, Michael F <michael_f_dickey@groton.pfizer.com> wrote:

    > I would certainly be interested to hear what extropians think of Patents (at
    > least, mechanical innovation patents)

    Coming from the IT/software/Open Source side of things, I am extremely
    skeptical of patents. The patent system seems to reflect a 19th
    century outlook on a mostly static, mechanical world which is wildy
    at odds with a fast moving 21st century world increasingly dominated
    by software and information.

    One of the basic themes on this list is progress and in fact the
    accelerating speed of progress. If you measure the subjective time
    of a patent grant not in years but by the amount of change taking
    place in the meantime, then the current fixed n-year objective
    lifetime means that patents are running for an ever increasing
    subjective time. Back in the 1800s, a time to market of a decade
    may have been realistic. Nowadays, a company may not even remember
    its products of a decade ago. Current patent lifetimes of ~20 years
    are an eternity.

    A patent protects against a competitor simply stealing the inventor's
    blueprints and outproducing him. (There are also more specific
    laws against the theft of business secrets, which I'll ignore here
    for the sake of argument.) I think most of us consider that a good
    thing.

    A patent also protects against a competitor seeing an invention and
    reproducing it more or less independently. Once you know that
    something can be done, figuring out how to is usually less difficult.
    I think the virtue of this sort of protection is not so clearcut,
    since we are not talking about blind imitation but about people
    being partly creative in their own right.

    A patent also protects against a competitor coming up with the same
    thing entirely independently without ever having heard of the
    original invention. It effectively screws out the second inventor
    of his investment. And as progress keeps accelerating, such parallel
    development becomes more and more common. I think this type of
    protection is objectionable. Of course, in practice, it may be
    impossible to prove whether a design was imitated or arrived at
    independently.

    Nominally, a patent protects a single invention. This may have
    been true in the steam age, when some tinkerer invented a great,
    fuming foobazler. Nowadays you have to consider that the patent
    protection effectively also reaches out to anything that is based
    on a foobazler or includes a foobazler somewhere as a small part.
    A patent removes a whole path of development from that available
    to the competition. Again, this wasn't such a big issue when
    progress was slow, but with the current and accelerating turnover
    of technology this is an ever growing obstacle to further progress
    in the direction covered by the patent. Obviously this is even
    worse for broad or generic patents that cover methods of doing
    things rather than actual devices.

    If you talk to some crypto people, they will tell you that the RSA
    patent was rather more successful in preventing widespread adoption
    of cryptography than US export regulations. You may also have heard
    of talk in Green circles of acquiring patents with the express
    purpose of obstructing biotech research.

    Patents have become a part of business, but in ways that do not
    deal with protecting the inventor's investment. There are so many
    patents that have been granted that it is virtually impossible for
    engineers to check whether their product violates any of them.
    Corporations recognize this and try to build comprehensive patent
    portfolios for offensive and defensive action. That competitor
    there cuts into your market? Sue him for patent infringement.
    Simply by being in the same market segment he is bound to accidentally
    run into your patents. Somebody sues you for patent infringement?
    Countersue them, they're likely to violate some of your own patents.
    Big companies, who hold numerous patents, have little to fear. With
    their fat portfolios they negotiate cross-licensing contracts with
    the other big players. For small companies, upstarts, the much
    touted garage inventors, the perspective is very grim. Patents
    that cover only part of a complex product or are so old that people
    already consider the idea as common knowledge can be used as a
    weapon to suppress competition.

    A favorite are submarine patents. Take out a patent on an invention
    that lies in the mainstream of technical development. Don't develop
    any product, just sit back and wait some years. By now the market
    is full of products that, unbeknownst by their creators, infringe
    on your patent. Even better if it has become part of some standard.
    Have your lawyers write threatening letters and watch the royalties
    rolling in. This looks like a perversion of the ideas behind the
    patent system, but it is neverless sanctioned by it.

    Then there is reasonable licensing. In theory, a patent holder is
    obliged to license his invention to competitors at a reasonable
    fee. In practice, it is not clear what a reasonable fee constitutes.
    And I wish you good luck enforcing this of a patent holder who
    simply doesn't want to grant any licenses. In the times when an
    invention equalled a product, this was of little concern. But
    nowadays an invention may affect thousands of products and a patent
    may keep them from coming into existence.

    As an Open Source person, "reasonable licensing" translates to
    prohibition for me. Since I don't charge anything, there is no way
    I could recoup even a minimal license fee. Patents assume that
    every invention and use of an invention takes places in the setting
    of a for-profit business. The patent system punishes the Open
    Source world for stepping outside of this traditional setting. A
    patent effectively removes an invention from the Open Source economy.
    In the Open Source setting, each patent destroys a piece of (potential)
    progress and the path behind it. In this context, patents are
    unmitigated evil.

    In short: Although I can understand the moviation behind the patent
    system, I consider it at best as of dubious value and ill-adapted
    to the times.

    Like other posters in this thread I come from a particular background
    that necessarily influences my views. For example, I have no idea
    whatsoever how the pharmaceutical industry operates and I can't
    judge the value of the patent system in that context. In the
    computer industry, patents help the biggest players to establish a
    chokehold on everybody else and kill diversity and progress.

    -- 
    Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          naddy@mips.inka.de
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 11:37:02 MST