From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:32:41 MST
[Behold, the great cycle of email, where the only way to kill one
flamefest favorite (qualia), is to introduce another (e.g., patents).]
Robert Bradbury wrote:
>Patent protection is critical to enabling visionary people to get
>financial backing to test innovative ideas.
Hal Finney wrote:
>What the patent system allows is that you can get paid for your idea,
>if there is demand for it. Without patents, idea creators can't get
>paid (much) for their idea, no matter how much demand there is for it.
Curt Adams wrote:
>Lots of innovation happens without patents. Patents slow innovation
>markedly by a) increasing legal costs b) requing patent searches and
>c) creating complex negotiating requirements to address all the
>possible infringements.
Lee Crocker wrote:
>If society had instead embraced the natural model of creativity,
>that all creation is small improvements and adptations of existing
>things, patents would be unnecessary, because there would not be
>the need to recoup expensive development.
Charlie Stross wrote:
>Basically, we have intellectual property laws for good reasons ...
>The problem is that they've been extended and misapplied until they
>also constitute very handy weapons.
Max More wrote:
>I'm not sure that patents could not be replaced by something better.
>... the fixed patent period as ridiculous. Patent length should
>vary depending on industry and market conditions.
I think patents just don't make as big a difference as either proponents
or opponents think. Proponents are just wrong to think that innovation
would drastically decline without patents; areas without patents have
plenty of innovation. But opponents are also wrong to deny that there
are times and places where limited patents promote innovation.
The key problem is: who if anyone can be trusted to make the needed
judgement calls about what sorts of patents to allow where and when?
Those with sufficient faith in the ability of governments (and courts)
to make such calls well should support patents, and give governments
a lot of discretion about what patents to allow. Those with greater
skepticism about such government ability should ask which is worse:
no patents at all, some very simple rule about which patents to allow,
or a very error-prone government using a lot of discretion.
Since I know of no simple enforceable rule that correlates well with
when patents help, and since I see large errors now and fear larger
errors with new technologies, I guess I favor eliminating patents.
But I'm far from sure of that position.
Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University
MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030
703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:11 MST