Again, I'm not arguing that the patent system
is fit for
purpose... but the idea is a good one. The
problem is that the bar is set too
low for obtaining a
patent and too high to defend against one, and this makes
gaming the system more profitable than following its
intent.
.
...and there are many other problems I'm sure you
would
admit to as well.
Then let us agree with you for a moment that
some ideal
patent system would promote innovation. Is it possible to
come up
with a practical, real world system that would
actually work as
desired?
I submit to you that in well over 100 years of
experimentation
we haven't managed to even come close to
such a system as you visualize. For
every "success", where
the system has promoted innovation, there have been ten,
a
hundred, a thousand failures, where it hindered innovation.
Cases where it
facilitated injustices.
My background is both electronics and software
development. To give you a historical perspective, I once
watched a wonderful
series on the discovery of electricity,
right from the beginning generating
electrostatic charges,
on to Faraday and Hertz, on to Edison and DC versus AC
for
general distribution of power, and on to patent battles
around
commercialization of radio waves and power
distribution. It seemed to me right
from the dawn of the
patent system that it was being gamed by those with wealth
and power. I wish I could remember all the examples now. For
example, the
great inventors who's names we associate with
key inventions are often people
who stole ideas from the
real inventor.
In summary, the ones who ended
up with key patents
historically were often the most aggressive and ruthless,
if
not the richest and most powerful. The true inventors often
got
screwed.
Now moving on to modern times, we see the patent system
has
grown more corrupted and dysfunctional as time
progressed, until today it is on
the verge of collapse.
I submit to you that in the real world, it is
impossible
to design a system that works. Our institutions can only be
a
reflection of the creator of those institutions - we
ourselves, imperfect as we
are. If we had the will and could
make the investment in time and energy and
form the
consensus necessary to create a better system, it will still
be
imperfect. It will still leak injustices.
Then we need to look at what
kind of world would we have
with no patents. You, for example, could probably
immediately raise examples of outcomes that would be less
than ideal. I submit
that whatever would happen, it can't be
worse that supporting a huge
bureaucracy called a patent
system. Think about the cost of this.
In
some ways, copyrights are a similar to patents. They
are causing us many
problems. The copyright system is just
as corrupted as the patent system. It is
just as much in
need of fixing. However, there remains one section of
industry
that is not eligible for copyrights - fashion
design. Because designers cannot
get copyrights to their
designs, fashion as an industry is a total failure. As
soon as you come out with a new dress, it is copied by
others and you have no
recourse. Of course the fashion
design industry just never took off because of
this. nobody
makes any money in it, because there is just no incentive to
innovate. Unfortunately, we all have to wear drab,
uninspired clothes because
nobody is going to invest in an
industry where there is no copyright protection
granted.
Furthermore, as we know, this sector generates almost no
employment.
It adds nothing to the GDP. There is no spin
offs like magazine coverage or
upscale stores selling the
latest fashions because there are none. Nobody in
their
right mind is going to invest in it! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|