Slashdot Mirror
Steal This Idea
Most of the themes and arguments in Steal This Idea will be familiar to anyone who's read a Slashdot thread on patents. Michael Perelman is an economics professor at California State University. In Steal This Idea, he takes the position that patents (and trademarks, to a lesser extent) hurt science and the economy more than they help. He makes a pretty convincing case.
Roughly half the book is devoted to the negative effects of patents on scientific research. Perelman claims that tying research to intellectual property skews the balance of study away from basic research on fundamental problems, and toward short-term research geared toward improving existing products. Several real-world examples are given--many of the most potent come from the world of biological and pharmaceutical research:
Two decades ago, Philip Needleman, then a researcher at Washington University, in St. Louis, and his co-workers postulated the existence of two cyclooxygenase enzymes, COX-1 and COX-2. By 1990, Dr. Needleman, then chief scientific officer at Pharmacia, had guessed that the COX-2 enzyme plays a critical role in inflammation. By 1992, three other groups, including one at Rochester, had confirmed the existence of the enzymes by describing the genes that control their production. Although Rochester won the patent, the competing teams at UCLA and Brigham Young University claim that their work was fundamental.
Whether UCLA, Brigham Young, or Rochester deserved the patent is beside the point. More important is the idea that the granting of a patent on a bodily substance permits the owner to demand royalties from any company that produces a medicine that targets the substance.
Perelman gives historical evidence of IP hampering the development of new technology. His best example is the thicket of radio patents that entangled the baby radio industry, until the U.S. government voided many of them in the interest of accelerating radio technology during WWII.
Finally, Steal this Idea makes the case that scientific progress in the last half of the twentieth century owes a greater debt to basic research from academic and publicly-funded scientists and researchers than to corporate research. The concern is based on the large amount of time (decades, rather than years) needed for basic scientific discoveries to become marketable products is largely ignored by corporate research, which is focused on quarterly results.
It's curious that the internet--maybe the most obvious example of this, is barely mentioned. After all, business research has failed miserably at defining network protocols that match the resilience and utility of the network designed by publicly-funded scientists in the 60s. This may be because Perelman is less interested in obvious examples than lesser known ones, of which there are several in the book.
The second half of the book argues against patents (and Intellectual property in general) in terms of economic theory. Economics is Perelman's area of expertise, but it is not mine. I had to read most of these chapters twice before I understood them. They're interesting stuff, though. Perelman illustrates various ways economists attempt to shoehorn non-tangible goods (information) into economic models based on "lumpy objects." He illustrates the flaws in several of these models, and how these flaws translate into inefficiencies in actual markets.
Good: The book isn't just a rant, although it sometimes reads like one. Perelman is firmly biased against IP, and he sometimes uses a few paragraphs to rail against corporations in general. But the book is logically laid out, and presents evidence in well-defined pieces, always clear about what each example is meant to illustrate.
The examples. Those mentioned above are just a few of the many real-life events noted in Steal this Idea. They comprise the bulk of Perelman's case against patent IP. It's always tough to build an argument on anecdotal evidence, but in this case, there's a great deal of evidence.
The scope. I had doubts that a 211-page book could do justice to the issues with every type of intellectual property. Fortunately, Perelman doesn't attempt to cover copyrights, and barely touches trademarks. The overarching theme of the book is that intellectual property (mainly patents) in the hands of corporations works against the original goals of its creators--to encourage innovation and help the economy. The book does a solid job of supporting this claim.
Bad: IP is supposed to be a "limited" monopoly. Patents are, arguably, the most "limited" of the three types of IP in the US (copyrights, patents and trademarks). Perelman could have acknowledged this, and given concrete examples of why the limits aren't enough to balance the monopoly power. He doesn't explicitly do so.
Copyright is nowhere to be found. That's not all bad, since any book would be hard-pressed to do a better job of handling copyright issues than Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright . Still, Steal this Idea might have included a few more references to copyright-specific cases or works, if only to encourage further reading (patent & trademark examples include many references).
Perelman gives some illustrative figures about why the patent mess is so bad, and why the USPTO is unable to control it. But there's not much meat there. Hopefully, someone will take a more in-depth look at the USPTO itself, and how it operates.
Conclusion: Steal this Idea has a great deal of information, packed into a fairly short book. It's a good companion to Digital Copyright, and well worth reading for anyone interested in how IP works (or doesn't work).
You can purchase Steal This Idea from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
This book does the exact same thing all the slashdot posts do, nothing.
Until our goverment is more worried about pissing off the constituents instead of the "sponsors" we'll get a government run by the corporations.
Money talks, bullshit walks. Welcome to the U$A.
Just like anything else..... all IP isn't necessarily bad. There's a heavy anti-IP slant on Slashdot, and that's a shame.
What's wrong with being able to make a few bucks off of something unique, new and original of yours?
Just like anything else, *abuse* of the system is the problem. How do we sort the wheat from the chaff?
I'm not entirely sure. I think part of the problem lies in the USPTO. They probably need to have some subject-matter experts on hand who can check all the patent applications thoroughly.
Part of the problem is that there are *SO* many applications, that the USPTO can't handle it.
Any suggestions on how to improve?
Although Rochester won the patent, the competing teams at UCLA and Brigham Young University claim that their work was fundamental.
I don't believe the patent was on the COX-2 enzyme itself, only it's application for medicines to reduce inflamation. If someone found a different use for the enzyme, I don't think the patent would cover it.
Who cares if it was fundemental. They researched it, found it, and claimed "FIRST POST!^H^H^H^H^HPATENT!" It's their right to get a patent for their work. Yes, it would be great if other drug companies could compete and make said drug for cheaper. However, you get into the "chicken and egg" problem of drug companies not doing research because it's not profitable. Besides, the author states that "scientific progress in the last half of the twentieth century owes a greater debt to basic research from academic and publicly-funded scientists and researchers than to corporate research." So why didn't they find it first? Prior art would have killed the patent. The truth is that corporate research provides an important contribution. If it didn't, this wouldn't be an issue.
Have to disagree there. At least I can't violate copyright without actually copying someone else's work. Patents can deny me the right to my own, independently developed ideas. They don't last as long, but they're much more powerful.
This review really made me want to read this book. I think the centeral problem with Intellectual Property is the whole notion of defining a right as a property. The legal system should go back to treating patents, trademarks and copyrights as temporary rights to exclusive use, rather than the newer notion of equating them with physical property.
And you want to motivate people to invent things, with money? Is that how we get all these carrot pealing toasters and refrigerated curl irons?
And how silly of me to think that we would want people to invent things because it would be cool, usefull, or helpful, to humanity, a friend, or people in your community.
You are absolutely correct. Inventing is now all about money. End of statement. It's very true.
It's not about creativity, convenience, fun or art.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
But you also have to understand, patents motivate people. As an avid tinkerer, I have several patentable ideas. I just can't afford to do it. Patents motivate corporations far more than they motivate people due to the cost. Could my ideas result in enough profit to warrent the cost? Yes. Would it actually happen? There's only one way to find out. The little guy has a serious risk/reward problem here.
Ah, but how much of that progress occurred because of the patent system, and how much in spite of said system?
The few examples that are mentioned in the book are what's wrong with patents. Patents that are too broad. Patents that cover things that happen in nature. Patents awarded without researching prior contributions.
What is missing are patents cases show their real purpose to help the little guy against bigger bullies. For example, the intermittent windshield case against Ford. Stac Technologies vs. Microsoft.
Really, he should advocate reform so that the abuses he exampled are curbed.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm the unfortunate filer of a patent. I did it because I wanted to keep my job secure. I didn't want to at first. The idea was kind of innovative, but no especially so. But then a competing company changed my mind.
My field has only three huge multinational corporations. As I was debating whether or not it would be worth it in the long run to toss my patent application in the shredder, we got hit by a patent by Philips, one of those big three. We had prior art on this patent. We had been doing it for ten years. We had never patented it because it was so bloody obvious, with art prior to ours dating back to the Apple Lisa. I was thinking Philips was going to get a swift kick in the butt by our attorneys. But no, we decided to cross license for it. It turned out that it was cheaper to let them use one of our worthless patents in exchange for their worthless patent instead of spending two hours of court time listening to a judge laugh his head off at the absurdity of the patent.
I came to the realization that patents in the modern world are nothing more than a set trading cards used by corporations. Some of those cards, like a Mickey Mantle, might have some genuine value to them, but most are worthless obviousness.
Patents have become valueless commodities. It doesn't matter about any indivual patent, so long as you have more patents than your competitor.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
After getting tossed out of a job a few years back, I toyed with the idea of becoming a patent agent. The logic being that I already had a strong engineering background, it would make a good part time job that could turn into a full time one and vise versa, and finally it would be a great differentiator on my resume.
In Canada, you do not have to go to law school to become a patent agent. You simply work as a trainee at a firm for at least one year then write the appropriate exams.
After going through a series of interviews with various law firms. The following attitude became disturbingly clear:
The agents and lawyers couldn't give a damn about the validity of the patent. They will happily write up a patent application for anything - even things that can't be patented under Canadian law (eg. medical procedures). Why do they do this? Money.
Writing applications results in billable hours, fighting with the patent office to get it issued results in billable hours and litigating crappy patents in bogus disputes results in even more billable hours.
In the context of running a law firm, this is a perfect strategy. In the larger context of "what's right", it's pretty shady in my opinion.
If there's going to be reform, it's got to either start with the Patent Office or the inventors themselves.
I wasn't disputing that patents don't have merit.
Since something like the 14th or 15th century patents have been around. Talking about the patent system like it's a broad affront to free trade looks a lot like biting the hand that fed you.
What I am disputing is your simple minded argument. Oh, and patents go far back as the 12th century in Italy.
I'm not going to debate whether patents are good or bad, because this is a stupid debate. I understand that the patent system has given the right people the right amount of incentive to develop technology to accellerate us into the future.
Edison is a perfect example. Would he have really been so persistant if he knew he wouldn't be rewarded? Probably not.
His invention was TRUELY novel, one of a kind and would be the catalyst for an explosion of technology.
Unfortunately, the world isn't full of Edisons. Most people's ideas are stupid, obvious or pointless. We want to AVOID rewarding stupid and obvious ideas and some how reward the novel ones, especially when they make it harder for smart people to innovate.
All this is supposed to be balanced out with:
* Intelligent Patent Clerks
* A backup system to nullify obvious/imminent patents when the Patent Clerk fails to indentify obvious/imminent patents. (Let alone prior art)
* Adjustable expiration times for classes of technology so as to balance incentive so it does not obstruct innovation.
* Common Sense
Instead we have a system run overrun by lawyers who have an incentive to file as many frivilous patents and sue as many people who violate these privilous patents.
* The Little Guys gets Screwed
* The Corporations get Screwed
* Only The Lawyers Win
Do you get it now?
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce