Slashdot Mirror
The Law of Unintended Consequences: Patents
An anonymous reader writes "Fortune has an
interesting article about the relationship between patent law and innovation. It compares the biotech industry with the computer industry and discusses the effects of the Bayh-Dole amdendment, which has allowed universities to make a lot of cash. But in the process innovation and scientific collaboration seem to have been stifled."
... is actually a fundamental problem built into all IP law: the assumption that money is the prime motivator for creative endeavors. (And yes, science is a creative endeavor.) This is a myth successfully propagated by generations of moneymen, but a myth is all it is. Scientists, like artists, certainly want to make a living from their work, but the best ones pretty much always do what they do simply because they want to do it, not because they expect it to make them rich. If your primary concern is making money, OTOH, you don't have the time (or, probably, the brainpower; suits who think of themselves as intellectuals because they have an MBA simplye have no idea what goes into a serious scientific education) to become good at anything that constitutes real creative work.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
While there are certainly areas of crossover, like the algorithms to filter through the volumes of data that biotech firms have, the fundamental difference between bio companies and computer companies is that biotech produces *something*. Computer technology is basically ephemeral. But Biotech leads to medicines and other discoveries that are both difficult to discover and inherently valuable.
It makes sense to cover biotech with patents, as it took significant effort to research and develop those things.
Computer tech, on the other hand, is primarily focused on automating processes. Computers are inherently faster than humans at doing repetitive tasks, especially in regards to calculations. But it is difficult to find a program that implements a process that doesn't exist already in another form, or that isn't blatantly obvious to everyone. Something like developing "a secure mechanism by which encrypted media data is stored on a device and available for playback when read and decrypted by the client application" would probably be a good candidate for a patent. "Users can click once and purchase an item without having to load the shopping cart menu" is both obvious and not really that far removed from the systems that preceded it.
That people get greedy and innovation slows down when companies are competing is just a small side-effect of the patent process.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
Grease keeps systems working smoothly. Lawyers, money speculators, used car salesman, and a zillion other occupations are society's grease. In a frozen static society, you could get rid of them once you had polished the system to the nth degree. But in a dynamic society, these greasers keep the various diverse parts all working together relatively smoothly.
But too much grease in a gearbox bogs it down. That's what has happened with intellectual property in general. Those idiots in Washington listened to their corporate sponsors and believed what they said about the more the merrier.
At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, business and politicians will notice what the true innovators and researchers have long since learned the hard way, and cut back on the flow of grease. In the meantime, the rest of us are stuck with completely counterpdocutive IP legal wrangling getting in our way. It may take a long time to notice the drop in innovation and productivity, but I sure hope not.
Infuriate left and right
As usual, you didn't read the article or get the point.
While Bayh-Dole was about commercialization of products developed with federal funding by universities (not particularly onerous a concept if you accept the basic concept of the state in the first place), the "unintended consequence" was patent legal wars - which are a direct result of there being patents.
And then you have the nerve to talk about pharma - which is exactly the point and example of the article.
RTFA next time.
And yes, you DO pay twice (or X or multiple times X) when the company is granted a monopoly on a drug invented by someone else. The issue - and the point of the problem the article has with Bayh-Dole - is that those with patent monopolies tend NOT to license or cross-license their products - which raises the cost of those products to monopoly rates and limits the spread of the IP - which is supposed to be the point of patents in the first place.
Just because patents are supposed to grant you a monopoly, that monopoly is supposed to be limited in time and subject to the provision that the IP gets licensed to all comers, so invention and distribution are both served.
Of course, it doesn't work that way. Monopoly is monopoly - I get it all, you get nothing. That's how humans work when they can use the coercive power of the state in their favor.
In a TRUE free market, you take your chances and the only thing keeping you from bankruptcy is smarts and speed.
And that's how it SHOULD be - raw evolution in action.
You monkeys just can't handle that, however.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Basic academic research is a phenomenally important beast - perhaps the most important component of our long-term economy and the long-term health of our nation. It's impossible to overstate this or to use enough hyperbole here.
And contrary to the tiresome pop-culture tirades, America doesn't have a terrible shortage of scientists. We could use more, sure, but our labs are jam-packed with Ph.D.s and incoming students. In fact, we have a slight overabundance of them, which is reflected in their unappreciatively low salaries.
When I talk to scientists about the factors holding back their research - which I do frequently, in fact, as part of my job - I get a pretty consistent answer.
Grants are getting more competitive. While federal funding overall is growing, it hasn't kept pace with the explosion in life sciences research in labs across the country. Life sciences research complexity and data have experienced Moore's-Law-like rates of growth; just look at the sizes of GenBank and the Protein Data Bank over time. But because all universities are increasingly focusing on federal research dollars (in part because their academic rankings are based on it), it's becoming harder every year to get a grant funded. Scientists must show more data, and argue more convincingly that the research is useful.
Contributing factors:
The federal government has taken a stronger role in guiding research. A growing proportion of federal funds is earmarked for research on specific topics - e.g., AIDS or bioterrorism defenses. This necessarily diverts funds away from other areas of research.
Also, the administrative oversight of federal grants has grown. Universities are now held to much stricter rules about how those federal funds are spent. If a grant proposal indicates that a scientist will commit 40% of his employment to a project, he must actually commit that 40%. Funds must be carefully tracked by university admins - no more "I want to buy a Light Cycler with my unrelated grant money" discretionary BS.
These are real rules, and are strictly enforced. The penalties for violating them include paying the grant money back to the federal government, large penalty fines, and potentially getting barred from future federal funding. As a result, scientists and university admins have to spend tremendous time on administrative tasks - which detracts from research.
Those are the factors that scientists most frequently cite. Surely there are others.
- David Stein
Computer over. Virus = very yes.
From TFA
Universities have evolved from public trusts into something closer to venture capital firms. What used to be a scientific community of free and open debate now often seems like a litigious scrum of data-hoarding and suspicion. And what's more, Americans are paying for it through the nose.
And who's to blame for that? Yup, the good old American system.
The fact of the matter is, America doesn't care about science. We worship things like actors and singers and sports figures and then snub our nose at scientists in academia and pay them crap. Business is the most popular major, not because it provides the most to society, but rather it is the most profitable. In other countries, scientists are looked up to and admired (for example, India).
In the US, the budgets have been cut drastically for academia (most grants are getting a 8% cut straight across the board this past year). Adjusting for inflation, the NIH and NSF budget's have actually shrunk over the past 10 years-- which is ridiculous considering the massive amounts of improvement in technology that have occured. With such a drastic decrease in available funds, researchers need to tighten their projects, search for alternative funding, and be wary of who they tell people what they are doing. Sharing data with someone you aren't collaborating with or on unpublished work is a sure way to find yourself out the door in academia. This is further being complicated by the fact that tenure reviews are starting to shift from the old paradigm of how many papers you published, to a newer paradigm of how much grant money you bring in (while this is usually correllated, it is not always the case).
It's not the scientists that have created the environment, it's the environment that has created the scientists. There's a reason why College Professors were listed as one of the top 5 undervalued professions in America. Patents are the one bone that academia gets and the writer seems to think that scientists are exploiting America. Academia is already losing a lot of great talent (and henceforth, progress) as it is in America due to lack of funding-- how do you think it would be if patents didn't exists?
Hear hear! Grandparent post has clearly not read the article, the basic logic of which is as follows:
(1) Inventions are now patented which would not have been patented previously because researchers could not *automatically* get patents for federally-funded research. There was a complex process that wasn't invoked for relatively trivial or cumulative research.
(2) The change in law led to a cash grab, and a research culture in which universities encouraged staff to patent any new developments, even those growing out of collaborative research. This led to commercial barriers being formed (licensing) which inhibited research and industrial application.
(3) As a result of #2, the amount of research flowing back into the academic commons is being sharply reduced. This is also inhibiting research.
(4) As a result of #2 and #3, there is a visible and statistically significant reduction in the amount of innovation in the drug industry since 1980, measured in terms of the amount of significant new drugs being made available to the public, and those which are significant enough to merit fast-tracked approval.
So parent post is correct. You *do* pay twice, because you are paying licenses to use technology which was never previously patented because it grew out of the public domain and so there were greater barriers to patenting it because a bureaucratic approval process was required.
The argument is that the law made it possible to commercialize things which were not commonly commercialized before.
I personally think you skimmed the article.
However, lets get to the reality of patents. First there is no NEED whatsoever to spend 5 billion to develop a test a drug! 5 billion is 5 billion! The argument that you need so much money to bring out a drug is bogus! The biotech industry can do with less, but because it is so easy to pump the clientel it is done!
I detest patents because they don't promote innovation. Cars became popular because a Mr Henry Ford broke the car patent and mass produced a car! It is possible to earn money in an pure competition world.
The reason why biotech is different is because it deals with the lives of humans, and that is why I don't agree with patenting of drugs. I like capitalism, but bio-tech is a vulture preying on the lives of humans. They say, "Oh you want to live? Well here is a drug, but guess what it is going to cost you!" That, my friend, is very scummy! Again not against those that want to earn money, but reasonable money like all other industries!
I am glad that you mentioned Microsoft. First yeah sure Microsoft copies, but Netscape was not the original maker of the web browser, neither was Eudora, neither was WordPerfect. If you accurately check your history books before Netscape was what Tim Berners Lee wrote, before WordPerfect was Wordstart, and the list continues.
In other words you have proved the argument that by copying we get a vibrant industry! You get real innovation! Because copying is evolution as multiple ideas are combined to create a new idea!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"