Do Patents Stunt Technological Development?

[Concordeia]

I've been wondering about the effects of patents on society. I understand that their primary purpose is to ensure the inventor of a new device or technique is properly credited and remunerated for his/her creation by making sure nobody else can make or use said creation without permission, but I see several problems with this kind of system. One, if the inventor is stingy or exceedingly greedy, they may choose to simply withhold their invention. Two, a company may choose to buy the patent and withhold it in order to preserve profits made from an older creation. Three, a patent essentially gives either inventor, whether an individual or a company, a complete monopoly over the technology until the patent expires, restricting it's use.

Wouldn't it be better for the inventor to be recognized for his/her invention as well as receiving a monetary reward in exchange for having the invention placed under public domain so that anybody can develop and utilize it?

[Hydesland]

Do Patents Stunt Technological Development?

No, it encourages such. There is much empirical evidence to suggest that the industrial revolution, and the rapid technological advance seen in the 20th century on the whole, was predicated largely on the strengthening of intellectual property rights.

[Conserative Morality]

Without patents, there would be very little reward for inventing beyond recognition. And you can't eat recognition.

[Techno-Kat]

Yes it would be much better, but tyranny does not work that way. \:

[Conserative Morality]

Yes it would be much better, but tyranny does not work that way. \:

I make a portable fusion generator. Since I live in a country without a patent system, everyone else uses it immediately, and I get nothing from my invention. I starve on the streets or work at a dead-end job afterwords. What does the invention give me? What incentive have I to invent?

[The Antarctic Lands]

Do Patents Stunt Technological Development?

No, it encourages such. There is much empirical evidence to suggest that the industrial revolution, and the rapid technological advance seen in the 20th century on the whole, was predicated largely on the strengthening of intellectual property rights.

I'm sure that you can direct me toward this empirical evidence.

[Dododecapod]

Without Patents, the inventor would be unable to market his inventions. Larger companies would simply make their own copies of any invention, cheaper, and the individual inventor would get no recognition nor reimbursement for his work, whether on his own or in a work-for-hire situation. The end result would be a stifling of creativity and devaluation of the abilities of the individual.

[Concordeia]

Is everyone just completely ignoring the bottom of my post?

Wouldn't it be better for the inventor to be recognized for his/her invention as well as receiving a monetary reward in exchange for having the invention placed under public domain so that anybody can develop and utilize it?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Depends, really. The present patent system does, I feel, stunt technology since you can copyright literally almost anything.

I believe a common example is:
Using an arrow to indicate what direction you should go in a video game. Owned by, if I remember right, Ubisoft.

So anybody who wants to point somebody in a certain direction in a video game has to pay Ubisoft for 'their' concept.

Another is the whole Microsoft/IE Flash debacle where a company threatened to sue Microsoft for using the idea of 'not having to click on something in order to activate it' in relation to Flash items in IE.

That sort of thing stunts development, because nobody wants to risk developing something only to get sued into oblivion because some guy owns the copyright for 'the use of rectangular advertisements'.

To my mind, a 'concept' shouldn't be copyrightable. A specific device, yes, a piece of code for a game, certainly, but the entire IDEA of using an arrow to point at something? No. Does not fly. The US government needs to take over the patent office again :\

[Conserative Morality]

Is everyone just completely ignoring the bottom of my post?

Wouldn't it be better for the inventor to be recognized for his/her invention as well as receiving a monetary reward in exchange for having the invention placed under public domain so that anybody can develop and utilize it?

And who decides how much? Is the paperclip trampoline worth as much as a portable fusion generator? If not, who decides?

[KludgeMUSH]

I make a portable fusion generator. Since I live in a country without a patent system, everyone else uses it immediately, and I get nothing from my invention. I starve on the streets or work at a dead-end job afterwords. What does the invention give me? What incentive have I to invent?

That argument ignores the fact that you most likely made the portable fusion generator purely by accident while attempting to fix the transdigital freon converter. One does not set out to invent something, unless that invention is almost entirely derivative. Invention is something that just happens, and those who would invent things usually cannot resist doing so, because their inquisitive natures make accidental discoveries of useful phenomena unavoidable. Therefore, regardless of whether you manage to derive revenue out of your invention, it will get invented. And if you CAN'T manage to parley your discovery into at least a modest paycheck from first sale, well, sucks to be you.

No, it encourages such. There is much empirical evidence to suggest that the industrial revolution, and the rapid technological advance seen in the 20th century on the whole, was predicated largely on the strengthening of intellectual property rights.

This may have been true in the past, but it is certainly no longer true today: The pace of advancement is such that an "invention" today is obsolete long before its patent expires. Instead, the outcome is that people are forced to come up with ridiculous and often cumbersome ways of subverting a particularly ridiculous patent...and patents have grown increasingly ridiculous over the years, and are now primarily used as a club to quash innovation, as increasingly trivial things are patented and the patents hoarded and sat on, to be used as weapons to stick your opponents with a lawsuit. Whatever purpose patents may have served in the past, in today's fast-paced society, that purpose has long since been subverted.

[Dododecapod]

Is everyone just completely ignoring the bottom of my post?

Wouldn't it be better for the inventor to be recognized for his/her invention as well as receiving a monetary reward in exchange for having the invention placed under public domain so that anybody can develop and utilize it?

So, who's going to evaluate the value of his invention? What happens if said invention suddenly increases in worth long after the initial creation? What ensures that the reward is greater than the expenses incurrred, possibly after a long period fo slow development?

You're replacing a simple and elegant system of ownership of concept with a kludge.

[Hydesland]

No, it encourages such. There is much empirical evidence to suggest that the industrial revolution, and the rapid technological advance seen in the 20th century on the whole, was predicated largely on the strengthening of intellectual property rights.

I'm sure that you can direct me toward this empirical evidence.

Not available at hand, I concluded this from reading various journal articles and excerpts from textbooks in my course.

[Conserative Morality]

That argument ignores the fact that you most likely made the portable fusion generator purely by accident while attempting to fix the transdigital freon converter. One does not set out to invent something, unless that invention is almost entirely derivative. Invention is something that just happens, and those who would invent things usually cannot resist doing so, because their inquisitive natures make accidental discoveries of useful phenomena unavoidable. Therefore, regardless of whether you manage to derive revenue out of your invention, it will get invented. And if you CAN'T manage to parley your discovery into at least a modest paycheck from first sale, well, sucks to be you.

Pardon? Necessity is the mother of invention, example, the safety pin was made to pay off a debt. Inventors are usually not the mad scientist type depicted in media, advancement for the sake of advancement. Edison was more a businessman despite being a prolific inventor (Or thief, depending on who you ask), Tesla made a large number of inventions, but many were never made because the market wasn't there for them, and I suppose Tesla wasn't feeling that being any poorer than he was was a good thing.

[Hydesland]

Instead, the outcome is that people are forced to come up with ridiculous and often cumbersome ways of subverting a particularly ridiculous patent...and patents have grown increasingly ridiculous over the years, and are now primarily used as a club to quash innovation, as increasingly trivial things are patented and the patents hoarded and sat on, to be used as weapons to stick your opponents with a lawsuit.

I didn't say every possible way of handling patent law is desirable, but the principle behind it is sound.

[Montanaa]

Is everyone just completely ignoring the bottom of my post?

Wouldn't it be better for the inventor to be recognized for his/her invention as well as receiving a monetary reward in exchange for having the invention placed under public domain so that anybody can develop and utilize it?

Who would pay the inventor though? How much would they get paid? The immediate effects of an invention could be incredibly short, and the inventor earns very little, yet in the long-term it could have extremely beneficial effects. With that in mind, how do you gauge what has been created is worth?
At the same time, with no Patents, you have a problem with knock-offs that are cheap, or do not achieve the desired affects. Medicines, machinery, and electronics could be created with the exact same premise as the original, could be marketed cheaper, and outsell the original product/invention, leading to a monetary loss for the original creator. That in itself could stunt future development because he has no funds to advance his/her research or give that person incentive to invent in the future.

[Greed and Death]

Yes and No. the problem with current patent law is it is a one size fits all shoe. For mechanical things a 20 year patent before others may use your design to as a basis to improve upon your own is reasonable. Where as with software by the time 20 years have passed the 3d engine from a formerly state of the art game would only be considered worthy of making sprite cartoons. In this way no one is able to use others code to create soemthing new and more advanced.

Also drug patents need to reigned in, when people need a drug to live or lead a fulfilling life it is unconscionable to all companies to charge unreasonable prices for the drug. IT is about time the US take the approach of the rest of the world and work with drug companies to set reasonable prices for these drugs. I would then be open to giving them longer patent protection periods in exchange.

[Concordeia]

Is everyone just completely ignoring the bottom of my post?

So, who's going to evaluate the value of his invention? What happens if said invention suddenly increases in worth long after the initial creation? What ensures that the reward is greater than the expenses incurrred, possibly after a long period fo slow development?

You're replacing a simple and elegant system of ownership of concept with a kludge.

Alright then, instead of a monetary reward from the government, if other people decide to produce and cell the inventor's creation, the inventor gets a small fraction of the profits for a set period of time.

[Dododecapod]

So, who's going to evaluate the value of his invention? What happens if said invention suddenly increases in worth long after the initial creation? What ensures that the reward is greater than the expenses incurrred, possibly after a long period fo slow development?

You're replacing a simple and elegant system of ownership of concept with a kludge.

Alright then, instead of a monetary reward from the government, if other people decide to produce and cell the inventor's creation, the inventor gets a small fraction of the profits for a set period of time.

So, a Patent system.

[Concordeia]

Alright then, instead of a monetary reward from the government, if other people decide to produce and cell the inventor's creation, the inventor gets a small fraction of the profits for a set period of time.

So, a Patent system.

On the condition that any individual or company can develop and use the technology.

[Caninope]

So, who's going to evaluate the value of his invention? What happens if said invention suddenly increases in worth long after the initial creation? What ensures that the reward is greater than the expenses incurrred, possibly after a long period fo slow development?

You're replacing a simple and elegant system of ownership of concept with a kludge.

Alright then, instead of a monetary reward from the government, if other people decide to produce and cell the inventor's creation, the inventor gets a small fraction of the profits for a set period of time.

Sounds a little familiar already...add in the refusal to let others use the patent, and then you have our factory system.

[Dododecapod]

So, a Patent system.

On the condition that any individual or company can develop and use the technology.

My understanding is that that is the standard. Ownership of a Patent doesn't mean no one else can use it, just that they must pay for it.

[Hydesland]

On the condition that any individual or company can develop and use the technology.

This sort of thing is actually quite a popular suggestion among many free market oriented economists, funnily enough.

[Caninope]

So, a Patent system.

On the condition that any individual or company can develop and use the technology.

The problem with that is that it discourages development from large companies, who may give grants to inventors in exchange for it being their patents.

[Concordeia]

On the condition that any individual or company can develop and use the technology.

This sort of thing is actually quite a popular suggestion among many free market oriented economists, funnily enough.

Wait, so the current patent system does NOT restrict the use of technology by other individuals/companies?