I just made a comment on a recent Slashdot article, but unlike some of my political viewpoints, this one is not based on a lot of research into the issue. I don’t know a lot about patents and why they should or should not exist. But my relatively uninformed opinion says to do away with them.
Full comment follows:
But where did this idea come from that the inventor has exclusive right to “benefit completely from its investment and effort”? I’m comparing this to deregulation. Regulation fixes prices at artifically high levels, increases cost of business (compliance), and more.
Let’s compare to patents:
- fixes prices (corp partnerships and duopolies collude)
- increases costs of doing business (legal, licensing)
- Plus, it allows monopolies to form
I don’t see any positives. But I’m not a reserach scientist Why do researchers publish their findings? Is it to:
- Help mankind
- Fame/prestige
- Make money (by selling their ideas)
You can do A and B without patents. You can only do C if you sell under NDA before publishing your findings, but you would in fact make less money because a company will pay less if a stipulation of the purchase is that the idea is still published, thus opening the company up for competition.
I guess the compromise here is for those scientists who wish to make money off of their ideas to sell under NDA, but bargain for their own sort of patent arrangement. This takes the control away from the government and corporations and gives it to the citizens, right? How can anyone (on slashdot anyway) not like that?
Comments please–this is not my area of expertise.
From what I’ve read, patents were originally designed to protect the lone inventor (or small companies) from big companies. But over the years, they’ve become more of an offensive weapon than a defensive one. We’ve got companies and law firms that get patents on vague concepts, then sue anybody they can find that might be infringing. Instead of making money on the “invention” itself, they make money by just preventing anybody else from using the invention.
The major problems I see with patents are:
* The pace of invention is much faster these days (due to advancing technology). The patent office can’t keep up with it.
* Software patents (and other patents on non-physical processes, like business plans) are a bad idea. We end up with patents on things like “method for transferring data in a neutral format”. What the heck is that supposed to mean?
* Patents last too long (see point 1). I think they last for 14 years? Something around 5 years would probably be more reasonable. If your idea is worth implementing, and you can’t get it to market in 5 years, let somebody else have at it.