I don't think the patent system blocks the sharing of information. A patent is actually a deal. The US Patent system requires applicants to fully reveal their inventions in the patent disclosures such that people with typical skills can implement the inventions based on the disclosures. The exchange is a 17-year of monopoly of the making of the inventions. Without patent, the inventions can be protected by other methods such as trade secret, which requires the inventors to protect the information related to the inventions from leaking.
I would like to point out that without proper IP protection, the reward of developing and marketing a new software idea could not add up to the risk of doing so. The development of a new idea is risky. It takes time and money to do that, and often the idea may not work. Even if it worked, the market may not accept it. Many inventors lose money in their inventions, and hope that they can one day have successful inventions to cover the losses. A patent provides a mean to maximize the profit of a successful invention. Certainly, the patent of an unsuccessful invention is worthless.
A good violinist plays violin skillfully. But that doesn't mean he can write good music. Comming up with a new idea and implementing it is different from perfecting an old idea and requires different skills. The person who has the gut of being the first should be encouraged and protected.
I agree with vertical-limit that people attack the patent system for their self interest. Patent emphasizes on creating new things --- so even if you wrote trillion lines of codes, but if they were nothing new, you could not get a patent. Different from what is mentioned in Bessen and Maskin's paper, inventors apply patents not only to raise money to cover the R&D cost, but also to maximize their profits. Money is certainly one of the reasons for people to create. But on the other hand, inventors often invent something that do not have commerical values. So it is necessary for inventors to maiximize their profit in order to cover the R&D cost of the unsuccessful inventions, and also other future projects. When outside investors are involved, it is necessary for a company to protect its IP to maximize the profit of its investors. If a company wanted to compete with Amazon, it should do the homework finding a way to work around the patent. Without proper IP protection, first commers, who make all the mistake and lose money during the R&D phase, might find it difficult to compete with the second commers, who avoid making mistakes and losing money by following behind.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the patent system blocks the sharing of information. A patent is actually a deal. The US Patent system requires applicants to fully reveal their inventions in the patent disclosures such that people with typical skills can implement the inventions based on the disclosures. The exchange is a 17-year of monopoly of the making of the inventions. Without patent, the inventions can be protected by other methods such as trade secret, which requires the inventors to protect the information related to the inventions from leaking.
I would like to point out that without proper IP protection, the reward of developing and marketing a new software idea could not add up to the risk of doing so. The development of a new idea is risky. It takes time and money to do that, and often the idea may not work. Even if it worked, the market may not accept it. Many inventors lose money in their inventions, and hope that they can one day have successful inventions to cover the losses. A patent provides a mean to maximize the profit of a successful invention. Certainly, the patent of an unsuccessful invention is worthless. A good violinist plays violin skillfully. But that doesn't mean he can write good music. Comming up with a new idea and implementing it is different from perfecting an old idea and requires different skills. The person who has the gut of being the first should be encouraged and protected.
I agree with vertical-limit that people attack the patent system for their self interest. Patent emphasizes on creating new things --- so even if you wrote trillion lines of codes, but if they were nothing new, you could not get a patent. Different from what is mentioned in Bessen and Maskin's paper, inventors apply patents not only to raise money to cover the R&D cost, but also to maximize their profits. Money is certainly one of the reasons for people to create. But on the other hand, inventors often invent something that do not have commerical values. So it is necessary for inventors to maiximize their profit in order to cover the R&D cost of the unsuccessful inventions, and also other future projects. When outside investors are involved, it is necessary for a company to protect its IP to maximize the profit of its investors. If a company wanted to compete with Amazon, it should do the homework finding a way to work around the patent. Without proper IP protection, first commers, who make all the mistake and lose money during the R&D phase, might find it difficult to compete with the second commers, who avoid making mistakes and losing money by following behind.