Slashdot Mirror
Patent Nonsense
ziriyab writes: "This article from The Guardian, after a few paragraphs of corporation bashing, gives an interesting history of two countries (Switzerland and the Netherlands) who flourished without IP laws. The article, while not necessarily suggesting that the abandonment of patent protection is an essential precondition for development, seems to indicate that it can, in the right circumstances, be an effective tool."
Although such things can work in a small nation... one really wonders whether or not such findings can translate to the larger scale of the United States. Interesting, nevertheless.
I find this author's view to be a rather idealistic one. After all, the situations he's mentioning are two isolated cases, founded on the success stories of a few very specific companies. .
What about all the companies that have flourished because of patents? And all the other countries that seem to be doing quite well WITH the systems in place?
I'm the first to admit that some patents are just plain silly (one-click, anyone?), and that the system needs a serious overhaul, especially in the US. But to totally do away with it?
I don't think a few isolated examples from the last century makes a good case for doing away with patent laws.
In one place he says:
This tool has been denied to poor nations, partly as a result of energetic lobbying by the very companies which once made use of it.
While i'm all for helping developing nations (and I think cheap medical supplies, drugs, and genetically enhanced food crops should be available to anyone, patents be damned), I don't see patents as being the cause of all their troubles. I find it very unlikely that a lifting of patent laws on underprivileged countries would fix all their problems. It may alleviate some issues, but it won't fix much in the long run.
He could better spend his time focusing on how to get these countries the cheap food and medical sources they need, rather than putting forth examples of 'patentless society'.
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo - H. G. Wells
There's no point in creating a multitude of useful and interesting things if nobody ever gets to use them. Somwhere between these two extremes is something that approaches sanity. Unfortunately, we seem to be cheerfully careening down the path towards over-control.
Read Bujold. Free (as in
Patents require disclosure of an invention (in full detail), have to be applied for, and are time-limited (they last for 17 years after being granted, IIRC). Copyright applies to the expression of ideas (actually, to any tangible expression of anything; writing, sheet music, musical performances, etc.), are automatic and last until 70 years (YMMV) after the author's death (different rules apply to companies, of course).
Most software doesn't have patents applicable to it (about the only examples I can think of are MP3s (Fraunhofer own the compression algorithm) and GIFs (Compuserve, now Unisys, I think, own the compression algorithm), but all software is subject to copyright, unless explicitly made public domain (very different from open source, but you knew that). So doing away with (eg) software patents would have next to no effect on the software industry. Some would say that doing away with copyright would have similar impact, but that's more contentious :)
Don't skip those first few paragraphs. While there is a bit of a bias, the article talks about the sale of cheap medicines to third world countries. It's true that large, highly profitable companies are outpricing these nations on things they need.
When will some people recognize that some rights - like food and medicine, i.e., basic health and survival - trump capitalism, intellectual property, and other protections which are fine to call "rights" in prosperous nations but do not deserve that designation in the Third World?
Perhaps there are two types of invention: Those that will occur without protection, and those that won't occur without it.
Obviously, not having protection won't hinder all invention, as the "inventive spirit" is something that most of us believe exists.
Also, while there may have been invention during that time, there was probably also more trade secrecy, something the article doesn't explore at all.
If the patent process slows business, it may actually be because it requires disclosure. Companies go for the "sure thing" by patenting, but give up the possibility of perpetuating their monopoly through secrecy which can be *very* effective. Thinking Coca-Cola? Chump change. Consider Ziljan (the cymbal people) IIRC, they kept the process a family secret for something like 400 years or more. If all the Ziljans get hit by a bus, nobody will ever be able to make those exact cymbals again. So, what was that about patents being bad for society?
Of course this is all just speculation and stuff. Nobody has the time to do an unbiansed, rigorous, statisticly valid study and present it in such a way so that laymen could understand it. That would be... a lot of work!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I would love there to be one, of course.
Personally, I think there should be no software patents what-so-ever. Innovation occurs fine without them. Competition is only stifled with them. Finally, software is one of the fastest changing markets and traditionally patent law seems horribly ineffective when applied.
Once you get out of the software patent arena it gets a lot more gray. The general trend is to expand patent laws and extend expiration of patents. It is also fairly easy, to keep a patent open and gain all the benefits of having the patent without having that time count against you. I think these two trends need to be reversed. Patents should not last longer than a decade and should count from the day of the first filing. If you can not exploit your invention in this period of time, the public should not be punished any longer.