From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Tue Dec 22 1998 - 00:47:37 MST
Tim Bates, <tbates@karri.bhs.mq.edu.au>, writes
> How do you defend patent expiry if it is a right? To me, if patents are
> justified, they should last forever. Just like when you buy some land, it
> is not yours for 50 years. It is yours, period. The fact neither of us
> thinks that patents should last in perpetuity suggests that patents are
> property but are rather a state tool arrived at by trading off the
> interests of one power group against another. The losers are you, me, and
> innovative companies.
Limited patent rights maximize innovation. After 20 years, it is
assumed that your patent would have been obvious in any case - that it
would have been invented even without a patent system or a patent office
or any other motive to make a research investment. The patent office
gives you a 20-year monopoly on the theory that you could get roughly
the same amount of time by holding a trade secret; thus there is no loss
to you from revealing your invention. Or to put it another way, the
government (the public?) gives you a 20-year monopoly in exchange for
having the invention 20 years earlier.
Ideally, patents are not so much property as a cooperative agreement
between yourself and the public; if you reveal the mechanism of your
invention so that the public can benefit, the public agrees to ensure
that you don't suffer for it. Because of the vulnerability of this
social arrangement to cheaters, at least at the time of the framing of
the Constitution, it was necessary for the government to enforce it.
Under a technoanarchy, buying the machine, or blueprints of the machine,
or any information about the machine, would require that you agree not
to build the machine, and require the same contract of anyone to whom
you disseminate the information, up to and including the information of
the invention's existence. People who refused to participate would not
know the invention existed. One could buy insurance if one could not
make good on damages from the revelation of the invention. This is a
completely Libertarian solution with pure contractual agreements. It
also happens to be completely impossible. Imagine trying to conceal the
existence of an FTL drive from a randomly selected 5% of the population!
Thus the Libertarian solution must be approximated by governmental fiat.
In the case of software patents, they are botching it completely.
--
sentience@pobox.com Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
http://pobox.com/~sentience/AI_design.temp.html
http://pobox.com/~sentience/sing_analysis.html
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise specified, I'm not telling you
everything I think I know.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST