Slashdot Mirror
Another Call For Abolishing Patents, This One From the St. Louis Fed
New submitter WOOFYGOOFY writes "The most recent call for curtailing patents comes not just from an unexpected source, the St. Louis Fed, but also in its most basic form: total abolition of all patents. Via the Atlantic Monthly: a new working paper (PDF) from two members of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, Michele Boldrin and David Levine, in which they argue that while a weak patent system may mildly increase innovation with limited side-effects, such a system can never be contained and will inevitably lead to a stifling patent system such as that presently found in the U.S. They argue: '...strong patent systems retard innovation with many negative side-effects. ... the political demand for stronger patent protection comes from old and stagnant industries and firms, not from new and innovative ones. Hence the best solution is to abolish patents entirely through strong constitutional measures and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent-seeking.' They acknowledge that some industries could suffer under a such a system. They single out pharma, and suggest other legislative measures be found to foster innovation whenever there is clear evidence that laissez-faire under-supplies it."
...why not change the duration, or require active production to defend a patent?
For some industries, 17 years is a very long time. If the duration were lowered for software to something like five years that'd make more sense to me.
For physical device patents, patent holders who fail to produce goods (and I don't mean to license the patent to another manufacturer without self-producing) a lack of production should spell the end. If they won't produce it then someone else could have the right to do so.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
you're going to call out pharma as an example where the patent process provides a positive influence?
may as well defend the patenting of gene sequences. or business models.
the whole thing is corrupt
What a shame, in your rush to get the first post, you mistook patents for copyright. Sadly, this is not the case. The industries that (ab)use patents are much, much bigger than a few pathetic media companies that don't even total up to a trillion dollars a year in profit. Removing patents would really anger manufacturing, engineering firms, software companies, and especially pharmaceutical companies. Do they influence the government more than the banks? I can't say, but they have the advantage, as they only have to convince congress to continue not changing a thing.
It takes years of testing to get a drug approved by the FDA, and that costs big big money to do. You get the drug approved by the FDA and then a chemist comes and makes the exact same thing, and your years of investment into research and development and clinical trials of that drug are going to not be paid off. Somebody would essentially walk the path that you made and they would reap the same benefits just simply by copying what you have done.
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
Why just patents? Copyright must go too.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Patents are supposed to be a (time-limited) barrier to competition. They're supposed to be the way the inventor gets payed for his invention. Without patents there's little incentive to develop inventions into technologies --- technologies that would be quickly copied. People who don't understand this probably would really suck as businessmen.
The present patent system is a travesty, a farce, an outrage --- not much more than a license for lawyers to steal. But the answer to a broken patent system is a fixed patent system, not no patent system.
This is not actually new, by the way -- Levine and Boldrin have been making this argument for years. I had Levine for a seminar on this matter four years ago when I was at Washington University, and it seemed like this was already a well-grooved line of rhetoric for him. Heck, they've even got a book that's been out since 2005. Here are some of the places where they're making this argument:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
http://www.againstmonopoly.org/
Wow, someone should patent that idea!
No. Congress has the power to have a patent system, but it's not a mandate. They could choose to end the patent system. The real stumbling block to abolition or even reform is a number of international treaties that tie our hands on the matter.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
False, the IP problem predates the Apple v Samsung case. The case just brought far more attention to the now exploding problem with the patent system...it won't be abolished though, there is too much money tied up on both ends. The government makes revenue, employs people...and Congressmen and DoJ are lobbied by big corporations that want the protections and the patent lawyers should make their millions filing. If you think the system doesn't need MASSIVE reform then you're delusional. I do think there are instances where patents make sense (such as drugs, as someone mentioned) You have high R&D costs, and without an incentive that you'll eventually make that money in the future...you don't use R&D as much (stifling innovation.) Still the patents are probably too long, because now Pharma companies are becoming complacent in their cash cows and innovating less. However, for design patents...that requires minimal R&D cost, relative to a 5-10 year drug process that also has to meet FDA standards etc. It's just a giant clusterfuck as is.
It isn't against the Constitution to get rid of patents altogether. The constitutional amendment isn't because the constitution forces us to have patents, its because the only way to abolish patents is to take away congresses authority to create them. Congress will never willingly dismantle the patent system. Too many private parties are paying them not to.
I'm not sure it would anger software companies, or certainly very few. Most seem to be *very* much against them, as it costs a large amount to retain the legal staff required in the system as it stands. It would anger patent troll companies.
While the constitution grants the power to congress to create patents, the real reason that it patents were put into the constitution was to take the power of IP away from states. State governments can't implement IP law. Knowledge doesn't disappear when it crosses state lines, so one state patenting an invention is a good as nothing as far as market protection in another state. The creators of the Constitution then took power away from the State Governments and allowed it only for the Federal Government.
For the same reason, the Federal Government can't actually implement a patent system. If you patent something in the US, another country can just start producing that product and ignore US law. Patents require a worldwide agreement and law enforcement, which is itself one of the reasons that patents should never have been created.
Very very few new inventions are the result of anyone looking up existing patents and then extending them. Many many patents are if this sort however (find a patent and add "on the Internet" or "via mobile device").
There are a lot of smart people out there. They don't need documentation of ideas to be inspired and come up with a new iteration.
Patents offer little of value outside of a historical record (which is interesting to a few academics and random editorialists looking for a background reference).
Patents don't even really document a specific application anymore as the lawyers who write them make every effort to obfuscate the true use in many cases, while covering all of the areas of interest with examples that are typically useless.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Except that inventions can't be covered by copyright.. Boldrin and Levine also oppose copyright as well, anyway.
Also, patents as they exist now are virtually useless as documentation (often not even making sense to the listed inventor), and people don't seek patents on things that they can easily protect via trade secrets, so no real knowledge is gained via disclosure.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
WTE is the St Louis Fed ?
I thought all Fed(eral institutions) were based in DC
Just enforcing the existing standards of "novel and not obvious" will go plenty far.
We don't need new laws. We need to enforce the ones we've got.
And the fact that we aren't just proves that more toothless laws won't do any good.
You can't. It's still under copyright.
rewriting history since 2109
I first read this as: "Another Call for Abolishing Parents"
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
The right to a patent monopoly is not a fundamental human right.
The US Constitution is written with a specific sense regarding rights. It grants no rights because it takes the point of view that you have human rights, with, or without any government's say so. Instead, the Constitution grants powers to the government.
The right to a patent monopoly is not one of the rights the Constitution assumes you have. That's because, in the eyes of the authors of that document, it's not really a basic human right. Instead, the government is explicitly empowered to grant patent and copyright monopolies. And that power is conditional: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
If it isn't functioning as intended, is it still legitimate?
I wrote parts of this stuff
its common knowledge that the elves patented "the method of imbuing magical qualities within compositions of matter," (see M.E. pat. '108). Sauron then proceeded to manufacture the rings of power, and the Elves filed a willful infringement claim in King's Court. Meanwhile, the elves got an injunction against Sauron in a Valinor court (which is commonly known to be an easy place to get an injunction), but a Gondor court held that it was unenforceable. Settlement negotiations quickly fell apart, leading to the War of the Last Alliance in SA 3434.
Even the Bible says
My religious text says pasta should be free to everyone. Lets legislate that!
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
They don't have "money", they have a magic wand.
The US government has granted them the power to conjure dollars from thin air, by issuing interest-bearing loans to whoever they want at any amount they want.
The fed has little need for mundane purchasing power. They have the absolute power to conjure and distribute any loan to whoever they see fit, with no obligation to report their activity to anybody.
It is in their interest to maintain public relations, disclosing much of their activity and staying engaged with officials, financiers, and the public.
But at it's core, it's independent in every way. If you'd like to see what they've done, ask your congress people. You'll find that they don't know. So encourage them to Audit the Fed.
Except that inventions can't be covered by copyright.. Boldrin and Levine also oppose copyright as well, anyway.
Patents and copyrights both stem from the same simple phrase in the constitution, which mentions neither by name.
Also, patents as they exist now are virtually useless as documentation (often not even making sense to the listed inventor), and people don't seek patents on things that they can easily protect via trade secrets, so no real knowledge is gained via disclosure.
Agreed that patents have ceased to serve any rational purpose as written in law (specifically the constitiution), which states
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,
If there was any real intent to promote Science and the useful Arts, they would have established colleges.
But then, that was never the REAL intent anyway.
That was merely throwing a bone towards justification of handing control of writing and inventions to those that invented and wrote.
It seemed natural to people who had carved out a nation from the wilderness, and built cities and industry, that one should be able to profit from one's work.
Oddly, this belief was held side by side with the practice of slavery.
The intent of patents was ALWAY monetary. Even tracing patents back thru the English system that predated the US system. It was ALWAYS about protecting the income of the inventor. Its been this way thru history.
Patents originally were an attempt to protect trade secrets that were, by their very nature, not possible to keep secret.
(Back then, there were few secret sauces, either in chemistry, or manufacturing, and certainly not in software. If you had the device in your hand you could figure out what it did, and how to make it).
If we just went back to patenting physical things built by people, and not processes, genes, software, or business practices we would be well off.
If we banished all patents (might take a constitutional amendment and we would have to abrogate dozens of treaties), I suspect the world would go on inventing as it always had, except at a much faster pace.
I would wager Inventors would make millions as consultants, helping to integrate their inventions in multiple different fields.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.