Bad Economics: Confusing Correlation And Causation When It Comes To Patents And Innovation

from the don't-go-there dept

This is unfortunate. Despite plenty of research showing that patents do not, in fact, lead to increased innovation (but rather increased patenting), many still assume that there's a direct linkage. Of course, it is true that many successful industries see high rates of patents, but there is evidence that patents tend to lag the actual innovation, rather than predate it. That is, once an area or industry is innovative and successful then everyone rushes in to get patents and try to extract their piece of the pie, often slowing down the pace of innovation.

So it's fairly disappointing that the Brookings Institution, which normally does pretty good work on these kinds of things has put out a study about patents and innovation, and appears to be confusing correlation and causation in saying that patents lead to innovation and even (more ridiculously) that areas that aren't doing enough patenting need to beef up their patents to increase innovation:

Metro areas that produce a lot of patents—and the inventiveness that that implies—are more likely to see above-average gains in population, productivity, jobs, and education, according to a report from the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research and policy think tank. And the bottom fourth of metro areas, the ones that produce the fewest patents, could gain as much as $4,300 per worker over a decade if they amped up their patent production to match the top fourth.

“If we were able to get the roughly 250 metropolitan areas that do very little patenting up to the level of the 100 that do a great deal of patenting, we’d be richer in an extraordinary way,” says Jonathan Rothwell, a lead researcher on the study. “It would make really a huge difference to economic development.”

Since the report focuses on successful metro areas, it seems that there are many, many other factors that may have resulted in the successful economic situations in those areas, and those other factors may also have led to the increase in patenting. Assuming a causal relationship and (worse) suggesting that all other regions need to do is up their patenting, is a dangerously ill-informed suggestion. While the report claims to account for "reverse" causation, it appears to make little to no effort to really account for the many, many variables that are easy to observe in every day life that lead to a correlation between patents and economic output.

I'd been working on a response to some of the many methodological problems I spotted in the report, and it was growing ever longer and longer... and then I saw that Eli Dourado did a much better and more concise job of it in explaining why the report is bogus. Dourado points to two possible explanations for the correlation, neither of which are accounted for by the paper:
These conclusions are unwarranted given the model and findings expressed in the paper. To see that this is the case, assume temporarily that patents do nothing to incentivize real innovation, and that they merely transfer wealth from consumers at large to the patent holder through firm profits. If this were the case, then we would find that measured output per worker was higher in metropolitan areas with more patents—exactly what the authors found!—because they are gaining profits at the expense of consumers in metropolitan areas with fewer patents. In other words, the authors could be laboring under a fallacy of composition. Just because patents enrich the MSAs that generate them doesn’t mean that they are a source of prosperity for the nation as a whole or that they increase social welfare.

Alternatively, assume temporarily that patents do nothing to incentivize real innovation, but that firms that produce valuable innovations must defensively patent them to avoid being taken to court for using their own inventions. If this were the case, then patents would correlate with real innovation, and therefore with output per worker, but they would not cause an increase in productivity. In addition, at least some of the measured increase in output would come from an influx of highly-paid intellectual property attorneys, which by assumption does not represent real added productivity. Note that the top-patenting MSA in the study is Silicon Valley, the part of the country where people are most concerned about defensive patenting. But the word “defensive” does not appear even one time in the report, the appendix, or the working paper.

The authors have done nothing to identify the effect of patents on productivity, which is to say, nothing to rule out either of the possible assumptions above. They are simply relying on the assumption that more patents means more innovation.
This is a major major flaw in the paper. It seems to assume that a whole bunch of things that simply aren't seen by folks who actually work in the industry, and makes little to no attempt to account for those other variables. In the comments, the lead researcher on the paper, Jonathan Rothwell, tries to defend the paper, by saying (in part) that they're just using patents as a proxy on inventiveness, and the paper should not be seen as supporting patents or the patent system itself:
Right up front, I think it is important to keep in mind that our study aimed to examine the effects of invention rather than the effects of patents themselves. Hundreds of economic papers have been written that use patents as a proxy measure of invention (based on detailed firm and industry level analysis), so I think that is fairly uncontroversial.
Just because lots of folks do it, it doesn't mean it's right. But the bigger issue is that while he claims that the paper is not an endorsement of patents specifically or increasingly patenting activity, that's not what he's telling the press. Just look at the quote we have above from what he told the National Journal. He specifically is saying that we should boost patenting in other metropolitan areas, suggesting that it would make "a huge difference to economic development." In other words, contrary to his claims in the blog comments, when talking to the press, he's pretty clear that he believes there's a direct causal relationship between patents and economic development. Furthermore, if he really believed that, he should have disclaimed, publicly, the title of that National Journal article, which explicitly says that patents (not "inventiveness") "matters to economic and job growth."

Also... if the report really is about "inventiveness" and not "patents," perhaps the paper should not have been called "Patenting Prosperity." Just saying.

Brookings, of course, is quite well-established and respected, and you can bet that pro-patent-system folks will be using this report to claim that "more patents are better" and that any reforms that are designed to push back on bad patents or to start limiting the number of patents we issue, would be a bad thing. Even though the report does, in fact, contain some arguments in favor of limiting certain types of patents and patent system abuse, those nuances will undoubtedly be lost. This report is going to get cited repeatedly as "evidence" that we need more patents and stronger patents, despite the fact that the actual evidence says no such thing.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 4:09pm

    Awesome. Then I guess Google will have no problem with me infringing on their patents.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 4:17pm

    ?????????????

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 4:19pm

    the ones that produce the fewest patents, could gain as much as $4,300 per worker over a decade if they amped up their patent production to match the top fourth.

    Spelling r/amped/ramped/

    Ramping up patent production means more employment for The statement of increased income per worker can, and if patents are used, will probably be due to increased selling price because of reduced competition, rather than increased efficiency of production. also increased income does not necessary equal increased profit, ot may be absorbed by ibcreased costs, such as lawyers bills.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Anonymous Monkey (profile), Feb 13th, 2013 @ 4:36pm

    This report ...

    bought and paid for by the USPTO. The biggest patent pusher out there!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 4:39pm

    So many words, yet you never actually refute any of their conclusions with actual data. Just a lot of high-level, anti-patentee nonsense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Paraquat (profile), Feb 13th, 2013 @ 4:54pm

    cause and effect

    The Brookings Institution ought to consider this:

    In China, people eat with chopsticks. Chinese industrial production is the highest in the world. So good, in fact, that the USA has moved most of its manufacturing industries to China.

    Therefore, one must conclude: eating with chopsticks makes workers more productive. Obviously, that's the cause of their success - I mean, what else could it be? The Chinese don't have software patents.

    Now if China would just patent chopsticks, they'd take over the entire world. Let's just hope the Chinese don't catch on.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    artp (profile), Feb 13th, 2013 @ 5:01pm

    Makes sense

    I believe that cordoning off pieces of technology that are contained in patents will increase the available field of endeavor. It's a win-win. [Losers not mentioned.]

    {/parody}

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 8:23pm

    Re: cause and effect

    Looks like we can add "correlation does not equal causation" to the list of concepts Techdirt and its readers love to misinterpret.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 9:36pm

    Predation

    patents tend to lag the actual innovation, rather than predate it

    I think patents do predate innovation

    predate (v): To prey upon something.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2013 @ 11:15pm

    Re: Re: cause and effect

    ...why? This is the same kind of extrapolation used in the study. Thus, if that is misinterpreted,t han the onus is upon the speaker to be clear and concise. Otherwise, misinterpretations can and will happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 12:34am

    http://www.uab.es/servlet/Satellite/latest-news/news-detail/uab-researchers-cure-type-1-diabetes-in- dogs-1096476786473.html?noticiaid=1345652365690

    Spain is known for its lax IP laws, whoever how could Spain come up with a cure for the plague of our times? at least for rats and dogs.

    Billions of dollars are expent on research for "treatments", but nobody expend that money on actual cures.

    The reason is simple, treatment means continues income, cure means a one off and thus there is lesser incentives to innovate and find cures but to waste time and resources trying to just treat it.

    Current patent system may provide incentives to a lot of "innovations" but in what direction?

    Was it the direction that is best for us, or just best for some?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Adam_Smith, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 1:45am

    Correlation of Patents and Innovation

    While Anonymous Coward complains that Tech Dirt does not "actually refute any of their conclusions with actual data", that was not the point of the article. It was addressing the validity of the Brookings researchers methodology. It also points to a serious discrepancy in what a defense of the study now claims and what was previously claimed to the press. These objections to the Brookings study seem credible and I believe the onus is on Brookings to seriously examine these objections and, if necessary, to publicly repudiate its study or, at least, some of the claims made about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 2:03am

    Yep create more ways to exclude others without having to do work and others will aggressively pursue that option.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/14/business/apple-loses-iphone-name-brazil/index.html?hpt= hp_t3

    And it may not be Americans doing the pushing at some point.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    relghuar, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 3:02am

    Great work

    Excellent study! Now I finally know what's wrong in my country, and how to fix it! And all it took was just a minor extrapolation of the original idea:

    Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia has the highest real estate prices and rents in the whole country - just about 35% above all-country average, but actually almost 100% above the average of all other regions beside Bratislava. It can't be a coincidence that Bratislava is also considered most developed and prospering city in Slovakia!
    Thus I propose raising real estate prices and rents in the whole country to the levels comparable to Bratislava! This will definitely cause unimaginable economic growth in all of Slovakia, as finally the whole country will be able to benefit from this clear cause of prosperity!!

    I have to write our politicians right away, just in case they missed this key issue hindering our country's true potential.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Feb 14th, 2013 @ 3:18am

    Re:

    It's up to them to provide data to prove their assumption:

    "Metro areas that produce a lot of patents—and the inventiveness that that implies—"

    Unless they do it's a lot of low-level patentee nonsense.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    techflaws (profile), Feb 14th, 2013 @ 3:48am

    Re: Re: cause and effect

    Looks like we can add "trolls don't bother reading" to the list of concepts, trolls and shills go by.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 5:18am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 13th, 2013 @ 4:09pm

    The fuck does Google have to do with this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    DannyB (profile), Feb 14th, 2013 @ 5:38am

    Re: cause and effect

    The best example of cause and effect that I know of is how the tides cause the moon. It is a theory that is indisputably true.

    This theory has predictive power, as any good scientific theory must. Based on the tides, you can predict where the moon is in the sky, even if the sky is overcast and you cannot see the moon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    The Groove Tiger (profile), Feb 14th, 2013 @ 8:25am

    Re:

    amp up
    vb (tr, adverb) Informal
    1. to increase
    2. to increase the power or force of (something)
    3. to excite, arouse, or work up (a person, emotions, etc.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    staff, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 8:48am

    more dissembling by Masnick

    "patents do not, in fact, lead to increased innovation"

    Fact?? How would you know? Have you ever invented anything? Have you ever filed a patent application, prosecuted it, attempted to commercialize it, had to enforce it in the courts?

    It is not innovation that patents hinder, but the theft of.

    In Federalist No. 43, James Madison wrote regarding constitutional rights of inventors, "The utility of the clause will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of the individuals."

    It’s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I’ll show you a weak economy with high unemployment. Does that remind you of any present day country?

    Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
    https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1

    They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world’s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are hacks representing themselves as legitimate journalists receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don’t have any.

    http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Gene Cavanaugh (profile), Feb 14th, 2013 @ 10:40am

    Cause and effect in patenting

    This article, as Mike points out, is badly flawed. As a patent attorney (well, IP attorney, since I do other than patents), I can say with complete confidence that heavy patenting is an effect, not a causation.
    Further, the usual reason is business method, specifically discouraging other disruptive business models or products from forming.
    There are benefits to patenting in some cases, almost entirely in protecting embryonic business while they are in the process of being born, but at this time, the USPTO is doing all they can to kill any useful forms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 12:50pm

    Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 13th, 2013 @ 4:09pm

    What does infringement have to do with this for that matter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 12:52pm

    Re:

    Pointing out that the same data supports many other conclusions and that they only arrived at the one they assumed at the beginning doesn't require additional data...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 12:58pm

    Re: more dissembling by Masnick

    My favorite part was when you linked to the that insight community page as if that was some kind of smoking gun. Hilarious stuff that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 14th, 2013 @ 1:05pm

    Re: Re: more dissembling by Masnick

    OH WOW but that was before I got to the end for the real punchline. You're literally arguing that patent trolling is the little guy protecting himself from large bullies. Had me rolling.

    Astroturfing this obvious doesn't come by every day, that's for sure.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    icon
    Zeissmann (profile), Feb 14th, 2013 @ 4:05pm

    Patent production

    I find the language in those quotations exceptionally amusing. They're actually talking about “patent production”. This implies they really view patents as products, which can be produced and sold. In this way patents really do stimulate innovation -- they stimulate people to invent whole new ways to abuse the patent law and exploit it to get richer in an “extraordinary way”. Very creative indeed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 15th, 2013 @ 2:03am

    Damn, if only I was doing the sort of thing we do in our downtime -- running a Twitter search for the term "infringement."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This