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!”
The ideal system of government is a benevolent dictator. One person acting with consistent policy and absolute power putting the interests of the majority above special interests and himself. While it is possible to find such a person once every few centuries, it is impossible to maintain this system of government because a bad dictator will inevitably rise and send everything to hell. Every society in the world has gone through the motions of trying to "fix" their monarchy, and suffered revolution after revolution "fixing" their system trying to find a better single ruler. But now, we have realized it was always a losing battle and abandoned the monarchy altogether. Representative governments may be inefficient and suboptimal, but they are stable for the long term and do not require violent "fixes" periodically.
The argument presented by this article is that patent systems behave in the same way. While a "fixed" patent system would be ideal, its corruption inevitably recurs no matter how many times we actually manage to "fix" it because of how it inherently distributes money and influence among the concerned parties. The only solution, therefore, is to abolish the system entirely and use a completely different paradigm to produce suboptimal but stable results. In many industries that may in fact be laissez-faire, while in others we may need different, more targeted approaches.
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.
Except the idea of a patent system is fundamentally flawed. Legal monopolies are rarely an effective legal tool, and information is not one of the exceptions.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
If only these economists at the Federal Reserve knew as much about economics as you John_3000.
Now if we could just figure out how they got people to invent things before patents.
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.
You can't. It's still under copyright.
rewriting history since 2109
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.
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.