Slashdot Mirror
Inventing the Telephone, Independently
An anonymous reader writes "There is a nice article about the history of the telephone at AmericanHeritage.com. Most of us know that Alexander Bell beat Elisha Gray to the patent office by mere hours to claim credit for the invention of the telephone, but did you know that two other inventors can also claim the invention, including Thomas Edison? Similar disputes about independent invention and patent ownership can be found regarding the television, the airplane, and the automobile. Maybe it really is true: the economic benefit of encouraging patents is like that of encouraging window breaking."
I seem to remember that Thomas Jefferson was against patents because he thought that invention was a natural course of evolution and that invention was inevitable product of the society and not the product of the individual. At least that's how I remember it.
Maybe it really is true: the economic benefit of encouraging patents is like that of encouraging window breaking.
That doesn't follow from the fact that inventions are often independently reinvented. Inventions are so often independently reinvented because new inventions depend at least as much on having all of the supporting technologies and ideas in place as they do on the cleverness of the inventor. Once the prerequisites are in place, it's not surprising that several bright people will simultaneously hit on the way to put them together. However, it's still possible that without the knowledge that patents will allow them to protect the results of their success, inventors might not be *motivated* to create their inventions.
It's equally possible that the existence of patents doesn't provide any incentive to potential inventors. I think the truth is somewhere in between, but the main point is that the frequency of multiple independent invention doesn't really say anything one way or the other about the efficacy of patents as motivators for creating and publishing new ideas.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I don't normally post to Slashdot anymore, but I just want to point out that Elisha Gray is my great, great, great grandfather. Not that I saw any of the money. Ah well. It's something to tell the kids.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
I don't think the "broken windows" analogy is a good one. A better one might be the tradition of some native american tribes to hold "wealth burning" parties, where the rich would demonstrate their wealth by burning it, thus necessitating the creation of more.
By taking a situation where there exists "plenty" and using legal fictions to create scarcity, they are clearly destroying wealth.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
The problem with patents is that most people think that patent owners are heroes and if your country awards more patents it is an indicator on how inventive your country is. People also believe that patents encourage a competitive industry.
Newsflash: Patents = monopolies
A patent is a monopoly on a technology. The patent office is a government institution that hands out several thousand monopolies each year. Most of these monopolies are awarded to foreign corporations.
Why would someone who believes in market economy and free competition support the government handing out monopolies?
How can handing out monopolies to corporations increase competition in the market place?
Why is Microsoft, a convicted monopolist, applying for, and getting a large number of legal monopolies? Why does the government sue MS for abusing their monopoly, and then give them thousands of legally enforcable monopolies?
)9TSS
I wonder what it would be like if everyone who invented the same device could receive their own patents as long as their applications were filed before any were published.
One obvious effect would be that you could license it from whichever inventor with whome you could come to the best agreement.
I certainly can't see any logical reason why anyone who invented something independently of another should be deprived of the fruits of their own effort.