Study: Sharing Patents, Rather Than Blocking Others, Encourages Innovation And Market Success
from the well-duh dept
There’s been plenty of research over the years (much of which we’ve pointed to here) showing that the sharing of information and knowledge — including information and knowledge that leads to innovation breakthroughs — can actually help companies thrive. Studies on the early success of Silicon Valley by Annalee Saxenian focus heavily on how information sharing among companies — even those in competition with each other — helped make Silicon Valley so successful. That’s because the breakthroughs opened up new markets and expanded them in ways that allowed multiple players to thrive. To put it another way: if, by sharing information, companies were able to reach major market-changing breakthroughs faster, there would be more than enough benefit to go around as the new markets expanded. Thus, the “cost” of having competitors with the same knowledge was dwarfed by the “benefit” of having the innovation and the resulting market expansion.
Gene Cavanaugh points us to a new study that appears to reiterate this basic point, but focusing directly on situations with patents. The research, by economist Gilad Sorek, found that the free-licensing of patents to competitors actually increases the likelihood that a company’s profits will grow as the result of a particular innovation. In other words, contrary to what many believe (that the best thing to do with a patent is to restrict others from using it), this research suggests that openly sharing that information for free actually tends to help the patent holder in the long run by opening up new opportunities that increase their profit.
The study, to be published in a forthcoming issue of Economics Letters, shows that the benefits of giving up patent protection outweigh the risks of surrendering a share of the market. By inviting further research, Sorek says, the original innovator is able to stimulate demand for its product. The company may lose a share of the market, but its product ultimately becomes more valuable as a result of the extended innovation effort.
The research points out that such open and free licensing acts as a way to get free research and development from other companies that help expand the original innovator’s market. This paper certainly seems to match what we’ve seen in other research in the past and, yet again, raises significant questions about the way many companies today manage their patent portfolios, as well as how they view the process of innovation itself.
Filed Under: economics, free license, gilad sorek, silicon valley, study
Comments on “Study: Sharing Patents, Rather Than Blocking Others, Encourages Innovation And Market Success”
No doubt Mike will cite this study from now on as proof positive of the point, and all studies reaching differing conclusions will be ignored as inconclusive. The self-fulfilling prophecy continues.
Re: Re:
No doubt you will completely neglect to provide any evidence whatsoever that IP is a good thing and you will continue to ignore the plethora of evidence suggesting the opposite.
Re: Re: Re:
No doubt you will completely neglect to provide any evidence whatsoever that IP is a good thing and you will continue to ignore the plethora of evidence suggesting the opposite.
Way to gloss over my point. Mike didn’t even read this study. It’s an article about the study. Mike doesn’t care about the methodology or anything like that. If the study says what Mike wants to hear, then the study is absolute proof that Mike will wave to the world. It’s ridiculous. The double standard on TD is just stupid.
If you don’t think that any evidence whatsoever exist to show that IP is a good thing, then you are not a reasonable person and the game isn’t worth the candle.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
IOW, not only have you failed to even try and challenge anything Mike has said, you have failed to provide any evidence that IP is a good thing while continuing to insist that we should just have faith in your opinion.
Wow, my prediction was quite accurate.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Call the trollbusters we found one here.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which point would that be? Your first post was ad hom, you dismissed the argument based on your opinion of the person making it without refuting anything they said. So is this one, you dismissed the request for evidence based on your opinion of the person asking for it.
Re: Re:
A self-fulfilling prophecy is something that’ll happen if people accept that it’ll happen. How is that a bad thing in this context?
Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Such as?
(crickets)
Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
For every study that comes to one conclusion, there’s another that comes to the opposite conclusion. It’s a stupid game. Studies will always conflict, and you can always find one to back your position. Mike is just playing games and manipulating his readers. It’s all he knows how to do.
Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Then your logic applies to the pro-IP position as well.
Since government established monopolies impede on my rights and they are known to cause economic harm, I say your logic alone is good enough to abolish them. Abolish IP. By your logic, there is no good reason to keep them.
Re: Re: Re:2 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
(and since no one is entitled to a government established monopoly)
Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Then it should be no problem to point to those many studies showing how IP is great right?
Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
I think there’s an old saying that’s applicable here…
“Figures never lie, but liars often figure.”
And the Content Cartels are proof positive of this.
Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Wow, you summed up all of the evidence for IP in a single post. Very good!!!
Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
(crickets)
Not really a very honest question, is it? Do you measure normal every day? Do we check the air to make sure it is still air when we wake up each day? We have been born and raised in a society with copyright, patent, and trademarks, it is as normal as can be. It’s part of our standard process.
All you have to do is look at all that mankind has accomplished in the last 100 years to understand that, if these things are blocking us, they aren’t doing a very good job of it. We advance at a faster and faster pace all the time, these are wonderful and amazing times.
The proof really is that we are not stuck like a bug in amber. Rather, we rush forward headlong, achieving more each day. Your “study” is in front of you right now. You have only to open your eyes and understand where you are.
Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Who’s to say we wouldn’t make *even faster* progress without “IP”?
Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Your assumption that the conditions in which an innovation occurred must have all contributed to its success is fallacious. It’s entirely possible for something to happen in spite of particular conditions, and given that, as someone else here mentioned, the lag between invention and adoption of basic computer technologies was about how long it would take for a patent to expire, that would seem to be the case.
As for your comparison to air, what happens when someone is deprived of air is well-documented: they suffocate. Drowning, pillow over the face, or a hole in a space suit all have more specific anticipations than just “if the air goes away, we’re pretty sure something bad will happen”. The exact rate of decline in health can be predicted, given a few other factors. Everyone who is deprived of air and dies is a crude form of study. There are, in fact, industries that lack intellectual property protection. That they’re doing very well for themselves instead of dying is telling.
Re: Re: Re:2 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“Your assumption that the conditions in which an innovation occurred must have all contributed to its success is fallacious. It’s entirely possible for something to happen in spite of particular conditions, and given that, as someone else here mentioned, the lag between invention and adoption of basic computer technologies was about how long it would take for a patent to expire, that would seem to be the case.”
The assumption is on the other side that there would be no negative implications from removing IP laws, and nothing but sunshine and sparkles from doing so.
The point is both arguments are flawed in their own ways. All I know is that I look at all of the progress that we have,and I can’t find a reason to bitch. To me, those who bitch are a bit like rich people bitching because their $10,000 a night hotel room doesn’t have a natural juju bean pillow. Get over your bad selves and get back to enjoying the amazing shit you already have.
Re: Re: Re:3 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Firstly, you’re still working from the assumption that IP causes innovation. As fashion and furniture clearly demonstrate, that it not the case.
Second, our IP laws have not been consistent. For the first half of the century a work’s copyright could expire while the author was still alive, and that didn’t seem to kill art. So the idea that our current laws are what caused our success, and are therefore inviolable, is simply false, no matter how you think IP in general might have affected it.
Third, your logic is that because we’ve done well, no aspect of the economy can be worth complaining about. There’s no system we’ve had for the last century that you think might be worth fixing? You’re perfectly happy with the state of public schooling in America, and think unions have just the right amount of power? Do you think that our immigration laws are exactly perfect? Do you think we should’ve been satisfied with landlines and allowed cell phones to die? If not, how dare you complain about something that hasn’t destroyed us yet. You’re just like a spoiled rich person.
Re: Re: Re:4 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“Firstly, you’re still working from the assumption that IP causes innovation. As fashion and furniture clearly demonstrate, that it not the case.”
No, I am working from the assumption that where we are not comes with tons of innovation, and at a pace that we have never seen in human history. I am having a harm time bitching about the temperature of my free steak and beer, if you know what I mean.
“Second, our IP laws have not been consistent. For the first half of the century a work’s copyright could expire while the author was still alive, and that didn’t seem to kill art.”
See point 1 – creative is ever increasing. That would be enough for Mike to draw a conclusion that one is related to the other.
“Third, your logic is that because we’ve done well, no aspect of the economy can be worth complaining about. “
My logic is that we have done well, and I don’t think there is any merit to the rush to toss the system out for the great unknown. We have “what we have now” or “some untried system that nobody is sure of”. I know what side I am on.
” Do you think we should’ve been satisfied with landlines and allowed cell phones to die?”
You make the point for innovation under our current system. I am glad you agree – clearly, we have huge innovation (and not paint color innovation), which is great. Why toss it all away on a hunch?
Re: Re: Re:5 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
You’re still assuming that innovation that happened under this system would not have happened under another, when every possible indication is that that’s false. A lack of IP protections is not an untried system that nobody is sure of. There are cases, in real life, of real companies and entire real industries forgoing exclusive control of their works, and it has not destroyed them. The article that we’re having this discussion under is about those cases.
Re: Re: Re:6 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“You’re still assuming that innovation that happened under this system would not have happened under another, when every possible indication is that that’s false.”
I just don’t agree. I think that plenty of medical research and such would be delayed, and almost certainly the expensive steps to move a drug from “idea” to actual consumer product would grind to a halt.
When you remove the security in the system that allows for a real business plan, most companies will take their money and run. In the medical field, you just cannot get around the true cost of getting something approved by the FDA.
“There are cases, in real life, of real companies and entire real industries forgoing exclusive control of their works, and it has not destroyed them.”
There are cases of whales and monkeys being able to communicate with simple words. Outside of Marcus, none of them hold jobs in the area of communication. Just because something happens occasionally doesn’t mean that it happens all the time, or is the rule. In fact, because giving it all away is still really the exception, it is still unique enough to merit some attention.
It’s already been pointed out that much of it is terrible for the economy as well. For every dollar RedHat maked, example, they estimate that $10 is taken out of the software world. It appears that music piracy is having a similar effect, with 60% of the business gone in a decade, and the decline continuing.
Economically, none of this is very good news, and in the long run, it’s not good for any of us either.
Exceptional cases don’t make rules – they make exceptions.
Re: Re: Re:7 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“I just don’t agree. I think that plenty of medical research and such would be delayed, and almost certainly the expensive steps to move a drug from “idea” to actual consumer product would grind to a halt.”
So all we have is your faith based opinion then. That’s not good enough to justify giving anyone an IP monopoly, especially in the face of the evidence that says your opinion is wrong.
“It’s already been pointed out that much of it is terrible for the economy as well. For every dollar RedHat maked, example, they estimate that $10 is taken out of the software world.”
Who made these estimates and what was their methodology to derive them? What data did they use and how and where did they acquire this data?
Re: Re: Re:8 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“So all we have is your faith based opinion then”
Remarkably, that’s all the Mike offers as well. Why not call him out on it?
Re: Re: Re:9 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“Nooooooo! Why are you calling me out for stating my opinion? No one should ever do that! Oh, wait, Mike has an opinion? Why don’t you call him out for it? Everyone should be calling Mike out on his opinion!”
Re: Re: Re:9 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Mike has an opinion backed with plenty of evidence. All you have is … an unsubstantiated opinion. That’s the difference.
Re: Re: Re:9 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
and your opinion isn’t enough to justify IP. IP needs justification, not its absence, and there is no justification for IP.
Re: Re: Re:9 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
You’ve got to have balls made of fucking titanium to make that claim in a comment about a study that shows the opposite empirically.
Re: Re: Re:7 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“It’s already been pointed out that much of it is terrible for the economy as well. For every dollar RedHat maked, example, they estimate that $10 is taken out of the software world.”
and you completely miss the point of progress and having economies. The point of having economies isn’t simply to create jobs. The government can hire people to dig holes all day and fill them back up. The point of having economies is to serve consumers. If consumers can be served just as well at one tenth the price/cost then that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. It means we’re getting the same amount, or more, aggregate output with less costs. The whole purpose of economies should be to maximize aggregate output. Anything the government does to artificially increase costs (from $1 to $10 per unit, for example) just to hire prices is little different than welfare. and we already have a welfare system, we don’t need to create more of those.
Re: Re: Re:8 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
errr .. just to hire people *
Re: Re: Re:7 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“It appears that music piracy is having a similar effect, with 60% of the business gone in a decade, and the decline continuing.”
[citation needed]
As Mike has shown, with his the sky is rising posts, this is a complete lie and you know it. Now you must resort to outright lies to argue your self interested agenda. Why am I not surprised.
Yes, incumbent businesses are facing competition and that competition is hurting them, but the evidence strongly suggests that the business is doing better than ever before. You know this.
Re: Re: Re:8 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
http://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising/
Re: Re: Re:9 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
All I can say is that this is Mike’s conjecture, his opinion and not much more.
I would also say that you appear to be trying to pile it on again, it’s very hard to deal with you when you make post after post, answering yourself and doing the virtual “yeah… and and and and”.
Mike has shown only that he is very good at cherry picking facts. If you pay more attention, you will realize that much of his sky rising in music is counting live GROSS revenue rather than the net that use to be reported. There isn’t a huge increase in the number of live shows, just a huge increase in ticket prices by top (label) acts.
Re: Re: Re:10 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“All I can say is that this is Mike’s conjecture, his opinion and not much more. “
It’s opinion backed with plenty of empirical evidence and you haven’t provided any evidence to the contrary whatsoever.
“If you pay more attention, you will realize that much of his sky rising in music is counting live GROSS revenue rather than the net that use to be reported. There isn’t a huge increase in the number of live shows, just a huge increase in ticket prices by top (label) acts.”
[citation needed]
because this looks like more nonsense you made up out of nowhere, as per usual.
Re: Re: Re:11 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
and despite the fact that you completely make up your posts with no evidence, as expected, the purpose of IP should not be to increase the net income or revenue of content creators. It should be to increase the wealth of information for the public.
and regarding your independent claim, many sites offer creative commons independent music, like http://creativecommons.org/ , sites that didn’t exist too long ago. There is far more (independent) music now than ever before and, as Techdirt has shown, many more independent artists are now making money who couldn’t make money from before (thanks to bad laws that lock them out via government established broadcasting and cableco monopolies and to a one sided penalty structure that deters many restaurants and other venues from hosting independent performers because third party parasite collection societies demand they pay them fees).
“Just looking at the US, while the major studios released 204 movies in 2006, indies released 390. His number is off in 2011. It was actually 141 movies released by the major studios… but indies increased their release numbers to 469. So, total movies released actually grew from 2006 until 2011.”
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120411/00100618448/paramounts-post-sopa-outreach-to-law-students-about-content-theft-still-shows-out-touch-operation.shtml
and this is one thing that the selfish incumbents are fighting against. It’s not just infringement, it’s competition to content distribution, because now independent content creators can make money without going through their monopolized communication channels. and the government needs to stop establishing monopolies over broadcasting spectra and cableco infrastructure, that needs to end (govt established broadcasting monopolies for commercial unidirectional broadcasting should end and govt established cableco monopolies should end altogether).
Other links to consider are the following
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111213/18060117071/actually-jobs-making-movies-are-rise-not-falling.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/01261417334/apparently-someone-forgot-to-tell-reality-that-entertainment-industry-was-dying.shtml
Re: Re: Re:12 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Umm, honestly, I don’t need a replay of Mike’s opinions. I consider the links no more meaningful than reading an op-ed page.
Mike has a preset opinion, and works hard to cherry pick any data that supports his point of view. The stories you link to show that off to the nines.
I don’t want to discourage you, but a long post citing Techdirt doesn’t really impress me, and really adds nothing to the discussion, except perhaps to jam the threaded board to the right, which usually ends the discussion.
Re: Re: Re:13 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Need I remind that you’re literally commenting on a post with a study in it. Yet still you provide nothing.
Re: Re: Re:11 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
When you look at something like “artist income”, in the past you would be looking at a net number. The artist would get paid for the concert net the expenses, so the actual artist income was X.
Now, the “sky is rising” methods have the artist actually running the show and paying the expenses themselves. So what is reported is the concert gross, less only promoters fees. So it appears artists are making more money. The reality is the artists still have to pay all the expenses of the show, but since that happens after the artist gets paid, it is said that artist income is increasing.
There is also a common misconception that increased ticket and merchandise revenue means more direct artist income. It’s less true than it was before, as more artist are getting into 360 deals, where their label and promoter also gets a significant take on things like merchandise sales and such.
Also, as Jesse pointed out in his “best of the week”, the amount of creativity going on is somewhat misleading. “It’s an important reminder that people are creating content and uploading it to various social networks & platforms every second. But the piece of this that rings wrong to my ears is the glib jab at “copyright industries and cultural commentators”– sure a twitter novel or YouTube webisodes are new, “real” content, but it’s not a stretch to make a value judgement that my 10 word Facebook post is not as creative as, say, the latest album by your favorite band.”
The measurements used to arrive at the sky is rising require a fair bit of suspension of disbelief. The cherry picked facts are often correct in narrow ways, but when looked at in their full implications, they are far from painting a good picture.
Re: Re: Re:12 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“When you look at something like “artist income”, in the past you would be looking at a net number.”
In the past you could look at both net income for the artist and gross income for the concert. Same today.
“Now, the “sky is rising” methods have the artist actually running the show and paying the expenses themselves. So what is reported is the concert gross, less only promoters fees. So it appears artists are making more money. The reality is the artists still have to pay all the expenses of the show, but since that happens after the artist gets paid, it is said that artist income is increasing.”
First of all, you still provide no citations. That different numbers are being compared is something you made up on your own. You likely didn’t even read any of the reports because if you had you would know that you are making things up again. I remember having similar discussions here, likely with you, before and I already showed you how you were wrong. Yet you continue to tell these same lies. Anyone can read the report for themselves and see.
Secondly, as has been pointed out, those content creators used to make absolutely nothing under the old system and so they would go on to find another career and not be artists. Now they make something. So if you account for all of the previous zeros, there is indeed more money being made by content creators.
and, more importantly, the amount of content being created has substantially increased.
“Finally, if you look at just about any area of the entertainment industry today, the amount of new content being produced has grown at a tremendous rate. In 2002, less than a quarter of a million new books were available on the market. By 2010 that number was over 3 million. In 2001, the Gracenote database had data showing just about 11 million song tracks. By 2010, that number had passed 100 million. According to the UN, in 1995, there were about 1,700 films produced worldwide. By 2009, it was more than 7,000. Meanwhile, during this same period of time, the video game industry ballooned massively, leaving its niche status behind, and becoming a major part of the wider entertainment industry.”
(under that report).
“but it’s not a stretch to make a value judgement that my 10 word Facebook post is not as creative as, say, the latest album by your favorite band.””
Which is something that no one, besides you, is claiming. But even facebook and whatnot provides an alternative form of entertainment, which is a good thing though it competes with incumbent forms of entertainment.
But peoples favorite bands are shifting. It’s no longer necessarily the bands put forth by incumbent industries, more and more people are discovering independent bands as well.
But more importantly, if you want to support and fund your arbitrary definition of ‘quality content’ then you do it yourself. But don’t sacrifice my rights to support your arbitrary definition of quality content at the expense of my rights.
Re: Re: Re:12 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“So it appears artists are making more money. The reality is the artists still have to pay all the expenses of the show, but since that happens after the artist gets paid, it is said that artist income is increasing.”
This is not true and it’s a complete strawman. You haven’t read the reports.
When citing concerts, the report compares similar numbers.
“From 1999 to 2009, concert ticket sales in the US tripled from $1.5 billion to $4.6 billion, according
to Pollstar. Ticket prices and merchandise have become major sources of income for many popular rock stars
like Lady Gaga, Madonna, Bruce Springsteen and for bands like U2.”
(from the report).
That you would disingenuously suggest that different numbers are being compared is either ignorant (which is expected, since IP extremists are expected to be too lazy to research anything being that their whole business model is based on making money off of the work of others) or dishonest (which is also expected, since IP laws themselves are self serving and that’s especially true of our current IP laws).
No where in the report are different numbers being compared in the way that you assert.
“On the consumption side, music is also being consumed at near record-setting levels. According to Nielsen SoundScan figures, the overall sale of music (including albums, singles, digital tracks, etc.) exceeded 1.5 billion transactions in 2010. That?s up from 845 million transactions in 2000. These overall sales figures seem to rise and fall a bit over the years, but they don?t necessarily drop during economic recessions.”
But, despite this, what’s clear is that more and more independents are benefiting now than ever before.
“Perhaps even more importantly, during that same period of time, BLS data shows that the number of people who were independent artists grew at an even faster rate — over 43% growth in that same decade.”
More independents can now distribute their content online and find ways to profit from it. The number of independents wouldn’t be growing if they couldn’t find the necessary funding.
Re: Re: Re:7 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
“There are cases of whales and monkeys being able to communicate with simple words. Outside of Marcus, none of them hold jobs in the area of communication. Just because something happens occasionally doesn’t mean that it happens all the time, or is the rule.”
Except for the fact that there is plenty of evidence that IP is a bad thing and you haven’t even provided exceptional evidence to the contrary. So who should anyone take seriously? I’m still waiting for you to provide any evidence whatsoever that IP is a good thing.
“For every dollar RedHat maked, example, they estimate that $10 is taken out of the software world.”
and as for your software argument, that’s another nonsense argument you completely made up out of your imagination. Which isn’t surprising.
“Software Engineers Remain Top US Job”
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/04/14/1628212/software-engineers-remain-top-us-job
Basically, we cite a plethora of evidence supporting our position. All you cite is your imagination for your position. and you actually expect people to take you seriously.
Re: Re: Re:8 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
and lets not forget that much of the software industry developed due to a lack of patent enforcement.
http://patentabsurdity.com/
Yet here we have Yahoo and Facebook battling over all of these completely ridiculous and unneeded patents and android paying all these patent royalties to companies that contribute absolutely nothing to the android. If anything, this harms jobs because it prevents the uprising of competitors, competitors that create jobs, from succeeding since they have to deal with all of the incumbent patents. It punishes the successful and rewards the failures and it harms consumers by preventing the successful from investing more into R&D to make their product even more successful and it also increases the prices for consumers.
We have a system where patent trolls, that contribute absolutely nothing, divert money away from those that do bring products to market. This is little less than a welfare tax with the proceeds going towards patent trolls.
Re: Re: Re:9 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Yet here we have Yahoo and Facebook battling over all of these completely ridiculous and unneeded patents and android paying all these patent royalties to companies that contribute absolutely nothing to the android.
Are Yahoo and Facebook sharing their patents? According to this paper it would be in their best interests to do so. I don’t follow these issues closely enough to know which, if any, big companies take out patents and then make them available to all, but it seems to me to be an easy enough thing to do if people believe sharing patents is a good idea. No need to reinvent the patent system right now. Just convince these companies to take the initiative and allow anyone who wants to use their patents to do so.
You guys are arguing back and forth amongst yourselves, but why not just talk directly to the big companies like Apple, Facebook, Google, etc.? Getting them to buy in would set the example.
Re: Re: Re:7 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Besides, the majority of patents don’t even make it to product, and every patent that doesn’t make it to product (preferably by the inventor & patent holder before the patent expires) is a bad patent. So the majority of patents are bad patents.
Re: Re: Re:7 ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Maked? Uh… Engrish!
Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Technology advances IN SPITE OF these things, NOT BECAUSE OF them.
Re: Re: Re: ... and all studies reaching differing conclusions ...
Argument ad ‘common sense.’ A classic misdirection. You know your argument applies equally for the existence of every deity ever imagined I hope.
Re: Re:
If you’ve got other studies please post them. Unless you’re just blowing smoke that is…
You know, it makes a certain kind of sense. When you license something out to someone, they have to keep you informed about how they use it. You could lock it up and do all the work of developing and marketing it yourself.
Or you can license it out for free to multiple parties. Each one spends money to develop that property and are required to tell you what they’re doing with it (else the license could be revoked). License it out to 5 parties, each party develops the IP in a different way. The ‘competition’ each get one way to better market the product, but the IP owner gets 5.
From memory...
This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast with each developer sharing the information and upgrades with all the others to build upon.
That’s why we went from individual transistors to VLSI chips in a matter of decades.
Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
Did they really? Because the transistor was first invented in 1947, and while it was initially used in low-volume, high-margin applications like mainframe computers, it didn?t hit mass-market consumer electronics until the 1960s, nearly 20 years later.
Similarly, the first silicon transistor dates from 1954, but the production move from germanium to silicon transistors didn?t happen until the late 1970s or so, again about 20 years later.
And the earliest developments in integrated circuits date to around 1950. But again, their adoption didn?t really start to take off until the 1970s.
So you see, in every case, there is about a 20-year lag between the original invention and the actual innovation of their widespread use in products. Coincidentally, just about long enough for the original patents to expire. Or is it coincidence?
Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
I’ve pointed this trend out before regarding various innovations in previous posts here on Techdirt as well. It’s sad that patents are used to stifle innovation to inventions that likely never needed a patent to begin with.
Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
Ahh, the perfect red herring.
Have you consider that, without the patent process, that nobody would have bothered to work on these ideas?
Further, your 20 year lag doesn’t account for many things, such as the time it took to develop manufacturing processes that could make these products affordable to produce. The one off examples that existed at the start of the patent process are far removed from actual commercially viable parts, you have to realize all that went into getting them to market.
Think of television, which traces it’s roots back to the late 1800s, and was really shown of at the 1939 world’s fair. Yet, because of the war and other technical issues, it didn’t make it’s real appearance as a commercial product until almost 1950.
There was certainly some interesting patent fights in there, but they didn’t stop the progress – it was more a question of many technologies developed to get a final product.
Re: Re: Re: Have you consider that, without the patent process, that nobody would have bothered to work on these ideas?
[citation needed]
Re: Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
“Have you consider that, without the patent process, that nobody would have bothered to work on these ideas? “
There you go again, basing your belief in the patent system on faith based assumptions.
Re: Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
“There was certainly some interesting patent fights in there, but they didn’t stop the progress – it was more a question of many technologies developed to get a final product.”
No one said that patents stop progress, but they do slow it down.
Re: Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
“Have you consider that, without the patent process, that nobody would have bothered to work on these ideas? “
No, because that’s an utterly ridiculous position to take, and is completely at odds with the entire history of humankind. Finding solutions to problems and looking for better ways to do things have ALWAYS been the prime motivators. NOT patents. Your suggestion is absurd.
Re: Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
History shows that this is false.
Also, the problem that patents are supposed to address isn’t that nobody would invent things without them. It’s that without them, the implementation details would be kept a secret, preventing others from learning from and building on those inventions. In other words, patents are supposed to encourage sharing and use of other people’s work.
Like with copyright, however, patents are increasingly used to accomplish the exact opposite.
Re: Re: Re:2 This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
and I have posted a post about how this is not true, but since it linked to slashdot, it’s still under moderation for some reason.
I’ll link to it with a fragmented link.
http:// hardware. slashdot. org /story/12/04/05/2016259/samsung-employees-conspired-to-sell-amoled-tech-11-arrested
(take out the spaces).
These corporations have patents yet they are still protected by trade secret laws. Aren’t patents supposed to encourage companies to disclose their technological trade secrets? Apparently not. So why do we even have trade secrets?
Where is the patent that tells me how to build my computer monitor, my cell phone, my Ti Graphing calculator, or any of these devices? Oh, that’s right, all of that is trade secret. The patents are worthless.
IP extremists like to claim that most patents are good. I have given them this challenge in the past yet they always fail to meet the challenge. Provide (preferably recent) examples of good patents and please demonstrate, with evidence, that these inventions would not occur without patents. and don’t confuse a good invention with a good patent.
I have only come across less than a hand full of good patents.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100318/1240568623.shtml
is one and there maybe a very few others that I have seen.
We can come up with far more examples of bad patents than IP extremists can come up with examples of good ones.
and, as mentioned, every patent that doesn’t make it to product (preferably by the patent holder & inventor before the patent expires) is a bad patent. and since that covers most patents …
The patents that don’t make it to product by the IP holder are either being held for defensive purposes (counter sue those who sue you for infringement), to patent troll, to stifle competitors from developing better products that compete with incumbent products (as the slashdot post “Nest Labs Calls Honeywell Lawsuit ‘Worse Than Patent Troll'” demonstrates. Link is http:// yro.slashdot. org/story/12/04/12/1957248/ nest-labs-calls-honeywell-lawsuit-worse-than-patent-troll delete spaces so it doesn’t get stuck in spam filters), to provide better cross licensing leverage, or to ensure that a company holds any patents on any products that it either produces or may one day produce to avoid someone else from acquiring those patents and using them against the company (hence the company either applies for those patents or purchases them). None of these above reasons promote the progress and helps consumers.
Re: Re: Re:3 This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
Patents and Trade Secrets are distinct. A Trade Secret is a strange thing which the law recognizes, but it doesn’t give you much in the way of additional rights & powers like patents do. In essence, it’s the law recognizing that you are keeping something a secret.
You cannot patent a trade secret, because you must reveal the thing in order to patent it, and a Trade Secret requires affirmative steps form you to keep it secret.
Trade Secrets are typically used for things which cannot be patented at all (the secret recipe for Coca-Cola, for example), or for situations where there it is more important that nobody know what you’re doing at all rather than how you’re doing something.
Re: Re: Re:2 This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
John, let me try to correct you on this:
“the problem that patents are supposed to address isn’t that nobody would invent things without them. It’s that without them, the implementation details would be kept a secret, preventing others from learning from and building on those inventions.”
I am not saying that nobody would invent them ever (that is stupid), rather that the speed at which these developments come is often based on the ability for someone to work at them, which generally requires money to pay for the things they need and to pay for their time to do it.
Mankind will eventually discover everything in the universe, develop everything, and so on. The question isn’t IF, the question is when.
In providing patent protection, do we encourage enough investment of time and effort to advance things more quickly? Do we trade off a very short term right to something in order to get it that much faster?
Nobody seems to be able to answer that one clearly and directly here without opinion. Yet it’s the key question – and one Mike avoids like the plague.
Re: Re: Re:3 This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
I am not saying that nobody would invent them ever (that is stupid), rather that the speed at which these developments come is often based on the ability for someone to work at them, which generally requires money to pay for the things they need and to pay for their time to do it.
In order to have an IP-free system, I think we’ll have to adjust more than just the laws. Which I’m all for. Remake the entire world economy, which is why I keep pointing people to new ways of thinking, like the P2P Foundation.
If it is better for every company when patents are shared, then more companies should be doing this, particularly the very biggest ones like Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. I understand taking out patents for defensive reasons, but once you have the patent, if you believe the more sharing the better, why aren’t we seeing more companies doing this? How much of corporate investment is still tied to patent ownership? Let’s talk about the very big picture.
I can see why companies that are being impeded by patents don’t want them. If you are being sued over patents, patents are bad for you.
But now let’s see companies that are benefiting from patents let them go. I don’t think the war has been won until the big tech companies take the initiative. Let them take unilateral action on this without waiting for Washington. As long as you have a system where you won’t be sued, then whatever you do to assure others that you won’t sue them would seem to advance this cause.
Re: Re: Re:3 This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
When did you stop beating your wife?
Nobody seems to be able to answer that one clearly and directly here without opinion.
You see your premise is in the question, you assume that patent protections encourages investments of time and effort to advance things more quickly. So you asking ‘does it do that enough’ even though the question ‘does it do that’ is still very much unanswered.
Re: Re: Re:3 This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
“Nobody seems to be able to answer that one clearly and directly here without opinion.”
Science doesn’t deal with absolute proof. We do not need to know with absolute certainty that something is true in order to know with reasonable enough certainty to make good decisions. If our decisions are based on absolute certainty then we would never make any decisions.
However, there is plenty of evidence that patents are bad and there is little to no evidence that they are good.
and since you even seem to imply that you don’t have an answer then even you seem to admit that patents are unjustified. Government established monopolies are known to cause economic harm. They raise prices for consumers. They do in fact impede on my rights. No one is entitled to a government established monopoly privilege. Their existence should depend on their justification. Yet you even seem to admit that you can provide little justification for their existence. IOW, abolish them, by your very own logic.
Re: Re: Re:3 This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
What are you correcting me about? You’ve said nothing that I disagree with, except:
Actually, this question gets discussed regularly, but nobody anywhere can answer it clearly without opinion. And in any case this is, you know, an opinion blog.
Re: Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
Trollishly inept troll. Calls something a red herring, suggests an alternate history in the very next sentence.
Re: Re: Re: This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
>Have you consider that, without the patent process, that nobody would have bothered to work on these ideas?
Let’s put your perspective another way. Hollywood was invented so Edison wouldn’t have to be paid for the patent on filming equipment. Hollywood is wildly successful today. Without the patent system Hollywood would never have moved to where it is today, therefore we need the patent system.
Give me a fucking break.
Re: Re: Re:2 This is what happened with the original transistor discovery/invention. It was licenced for peanuts and the improvements came thick and fast...
Since Hollywood is destroying Congress and our government, maybe we would be better off without the patent system and hence without Hollywood.
It should also be pointed out that the report is very theoretical, and doesn’t have any real world application (current) that would allow the theory to be proven.
Re: Re:
“Sorek’s work is theoretical but does cite previous research that provides examples of technological leaders taking actions to attract rivals, including Adobe putting both Postscript and PDF formats in the public domain and IBM donating a number of patents to other developers.”
(from the link, emphasis added).
It should also be pointed out that there is little to no evidence that IP provides any benefits to anyone beyond IP holders who either license, sell, or refuse to license or sell their IP. IP is a privilege that no one is entitled to and government established monopolies are known to create economic harm and so these IP monopoly privileges need to be justified with substantial empirical evidence yet none exist.
Re: Re:
Lack of real world application has never stopped the RIAA.
Re: Re:
Ford created a pool of free patents and look what happened to him.
Re: Re: Re:
You know what happened to Ford? He’s DEAD. That’s right, free patents kill people.
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 13th, 2012 @ 9:25pm
Apparently you haven’t heard of GNU/GPL (Free) general public licenses have brought the development of scores of free “Open Source” softwares such as Drupal.org that the White House uses for it’s own public sites. The Drupal creator spun a commercial offering called Acquia that is hugely successful. Drupal is only one example.
“It should also be pointed out that there is little to no evidence that IP provides any benefits to anyone beyond IP holders who either license, sell, or refuse to license or sell their IP. IP is a privilege that no one is entitled to and government established monopolies are known to create economic harm and so these IP monopoly privileges need to be justified with substantial empirical evidence yet none exist.”
Just look around you my friend. We have lived with patent laws in the US for a very long time, and the US is the envy of the world when it comes to economic progress in the last 100 years.
All the evidence you need is right in front of you, unless of course you choose to ignore it.
Re: Re:
Just look around you my friend. We have lived with workers’ unions in the US for a very long time, and the US is the envy of the world when it comes to economic progress in the last 100 years.
All the evidence you need is right in front of you, unless of course you choose to ignore it.
Just look around you my friend. We have lived with a constant flow of immigrants in the US for a very long time, and the US is the envy of the world when it comes to economic progress in the last 100 years.
All the evidence you need is right in front of you, unless of course you choose to ignore it.
Just look around you my friend. We have lived with fire codes in the US for a very long time, and the US is the envy of the world when it comes to economic progress in the last 100 years.
All the evidence you need is right in front of you, unless of course you choose to ignore it.
Just look around you my friend. We have lived with corn in the US for a very long time, and the US is the envy of the world when it comes to economic progress in the last 100 years.
All the evidence you need is right in front of you, unless of course you choose to ignore it.
I could go on.
Re: Re: Re:
Just look around on Techdirt. We are surrounded by idiots fast to stop answering question by making stupid posts.
All the evidence you need is right in front of you, unless of course you choose to ignore it.
Look, you can be a jerk about it if you want, that’s your choice. But let’s get real here – we have to work with what we can see. There isn’t any data out there for “planets without copyright or patent”, so only one side can provide data.
Unless of course you know of a planet…
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is that the existence of IP in a successful economy is not proof that the economy was successful because of IP. Pointing out America’s economic success in conjunction with its having IP laws is just as much a logical fallacy as doing so with public schooling, unionization, immigration, or corn.
Now, as for presenting you with a copyright-free planet, you’re not entitled to that proof. That is not evidence that could reasonably be expected to be found prior to either a definitive resolution of this argument or First Contact. You’re going to have to be satisfied with the data we have on mere industries without copyright or patent, and on companies and people in other industries that don’t take their enforcement very seriously. You’ve been dismissing them because they’re “the exception”, as if the fact that more industries use copyright and patents is relevant in a discussion about their effectiveness, but in a world where copyright is the standard, they’re the best proof of IP’s uselessness that anyone could reasonably be expected to have.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You’re going to have to be satisfied with the data we have on mere industries without copyright or patent, and on companies and people in other industries that don’t take their enforcement very seriously.
If you are making your case, why aren’t companies like Apple embracing it? I’m not raising questions about the study. What I am saying is that the companies in a position to change the IP world don’t seem to be moving in that direction very fast.
My cynical feeling is that companies are anti-IP when it works for them, and pro-IP when that works for them. And it isn’t just the usual suspects. I think as companies become more established, they tend to promote whatever keeps them in power no matter what industry they are in. But if you can make a case that they will become even MORE powerful without IP, then they might listen.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The only problem you’re having is you’re looking at the wrong company. Apple’s really big on control: they’ve fought to prevent paying customers from getting administrator access to their legally purchased iThings. What they are not big on is competition. Those factors combined lead to them demanding licensing fees from Google for daring to make smartphones with slide-to-unlock systems or something. And that bring us to the other major player in the field of tiny touchscreen thingies: Google, who released their operating system’s source code into the wild, thereby doing exactly what you’re suggesting major companies should be doing. So there are companies like Apple doing what we’re suggesting, just not Apple.
As for making the case of weaker IP making them more powerful, that’s what stuff like this article is trying to do. It’s hard, though, when one person says “copying” or “sharing” and the other hears “stealing”.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Yes, I know Apple is particularly controlling and probably won’t go along. But other big companies could. To what extent has Google shared and made freely available all the patents it owns? I don’t know. This is not an area I follow closely.
I’m just pointing out that if people buy the logic of this study, freeing up patents should be an easy sell. We know, of course, IP lawyers aren’t inclined to go along, but what about the CEOs of the world’s biggest tech companies? Do they believe this study and will they act on it?
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Probably not. Valve’s ridiculous level of success hasn’t influenced the major video game publishers, and no one seems to care what Google has to say despite it being the most successful organization since Catholicism. People tend to get very attached to their methods even at the expense of their objectives, and organizations are even worse, so I suspect the best option is to work around them and try to minimize the damage caused by the methods.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So your position is that because no other way has been tried we can’t get data on what another way would do so we obviously can’t try to change things.
Thanks for this enlightening circle jerk of an argument.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I know, what kinda stupid logic is this. Just because patents exist in some parts of the world doesn’t mean that no data on how a patent free world would look like doesn’t exist and that reasonable inferences can’t be made from said data.
Re: Re:
“US is the envy of the world when it comes to economic progress”
You need to catch up with some history. Things have not been going so well for you Americans, just lately. Check out recent economic growth figures for China. Steel production is particularly instructive. Also look at the standard of living for the median US citizen versus the median citizen in other first-world countries. Compare health care systems. There is pretty much no envy there at all, actually.
Re: Re:
When you say economic progress in the last 100 years, you’re including 2008, right?
If that’s your definition of progress I am deathly worried for the world’s future.
Re: Re:
Just look around you my friend. We have lived with the Plant Quarantine Act for 100 years, and the US is the envy of the world when it comes to economic progress in the last 100 years.
All the evidence you need is right in front of you, unless of course to choose to ignore that the Plant Quarantine Act is responsible for the enviable economic progress.
Re: Re:
Have you read the history of America industrial revolution?
It was all about disrespecting IP.
The movie industry came about by infringers that violated Edison patents, radios happened by mavericks that disrespect IP, cable is about yahoo’s who saw an opportunity and disrespected IP every single giant industry in the US came about because they disrespected IP even stealth technology is fruit of IP theft or is the US government going to pay the Russians now?
The textile industry was based on IP theft, automobiles where based on free pool of patents.
Fuck everything is about IP theft, without it the US would be like China in the 80’s.
Re: Re:
About looking around:
– Healthcare that nobody can afford that is the envy of the world?
– High unemployment numbers with many entering the always unemployment list every year.
– Infra-structure decrepit and falling apart literally.
– Exclusive deals everywhere where nobody can afford the prices charged to enter that market contributing to less employers and thus less employment.
– Taking advice from the Japanese about how IP laws should be, now this one is a LoL
– American middle class is an endangered species LoL
– Not one country wants to buy Monsanto seeds because it means giving away their agricultural assets to US interests, only countries that can’t say no buy that crap.
– US companies beaten in international markets all around the globe (cars, airlines, food, natural resources, etc)
– Terrorism magnet.
The US is becoming the butt jokes for other countries all around the world.
Re: Re:
Quote:
Your Google glasses are set to filter the Occupy movement?
Re: Re:
The leading nation being patent friendly is not proof that patents are the reason for that sucess.
Market variables, we call them that because there is more than one of them. Sucess can also be due to any of:
-corperate friendly tax rates/law
-less bullshit regulations(not saying regulation itself is bad, but there are some pretty shitty ones on the books)
-a passion for ivention(not control or profit, but invention of the sake of doing it better) that is stronger in our culture than in others
-A drive to win in the marketpace that is dulled in other counties, intentionally or not
….and a number of other things unrelated to patents.
Re: Re:
the US is the envy of IP lawyers around the world.
ftfy
Re: Re:
Just look around you my friend. We have lived in god’s creation in the US for a very long time, and the US is the envy of the world when it comes to religious progress in the last 100 years.
All the evidence you need is right in front of you, unless of course you choose to ignore it.
I wish those guys who wish to monopolize using patents/IP/CR read this…
It will make everyone’s lives soo much simple…
than to ignore or try to abolish human rights for the sake of profit and the so called “Innovation” thru these Patents/IP/CR…
Will big tech take the lead?
Something like this is easy enough to do. It doesn’t require changing IP laws. Patent holders just free up what they have.
So if this better for companies, and if the new power block is Big Tech, will Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others start doing this? Seems like this would be a faster approach then trying to lobby DC.
Sharing raising all boats
The results of the study shouldn’t be very surprising. We’ve seen the same phenomena in the field of open source software for two decades: companies that get involved and contribute to OSS benefit themselves, even though their competitors can use the improvements they contribute.
Re: Sharing raising all boats
This is essentially one of the major reasons open source works especially with regards to R&D. Android is a perfect example of this and this is one of the reasons that the Android OS encompases close to 50% of the smartphone market.
Re: Re: Sharing raising all boats
and if Android phones didn’t divert so much money to competitors due to patents and if they didn’t have to find ways to avoid infringing all of the ridiculous patents that everyone asserts to reduce its patent expenditures, it could have easily gotten more R&D and improvement funding, it could have easily been sold at a lower price, and it could have easily gained an even larger market share by now.
Re: Re: Re: Sharing raising all boats
My point was that BECAUSE it is open source, Google gets free R&D and more competitors enter the market with more innovation and a lower price point due to increased competition which in turn translates to a larger market share for the platform.
Blame the bean counter
Developers, I mean the real ones, scientists and a host of other creative people would love to share their works. What stops them is the money man.
Development cost money and most of the money comes from a venture capitol providers or a company of sorts and all they care about is profits.
They don’t care if some invention would cure cancer. They would want to charge big time for it, patent the discovery to the hilt and stuff those who are dying.
So put the blame where it belongs. The bloody greedy Rothschilds and Rockefellers of this world.
Re: Blame the bean counter
“What stops them is the money, man.”
FTFY.
In defense of patents
Inventions start as secrets in the mind of the inventor or his/her group. They have the option of taking their secret inventions to grave with them and not telling anyone. But, society wants to encourage them to disclose the inventions and NOT keep them secret. That is what the patent system does. In exchange for disclosing the secret invention in the patent, the government stands behind the inventor to keep others from commercializing the invention without the patentee’s consent.
Yes, there are software geeks and socialists who would share their developments with others without compensation, but they are the exception, not the rule.
There are posts here about how folks like to collaborate and aren’t allowed to by the money men. Well, yes, if you want a salary for inventing, then you need to enable the person who is paying your salary to benefit from your work. If you are Mother Teresa, on the other hand, you can free-lance and give away the fruits of your labor — noone is stopping you.
Re: In defense of patents
There are posts here about how folks like to collaborate and aren’t allowed to by the money men. Well, yes, if you want a salary for inventing, then you need to enable the person who is paying your salary to benefit from your work. If you are Mother Teresa, on the other hand, you can free-lance and give away the fruits of your labor — noone is stopping you.
That’s what I am advocating for now, too. If you believe sharing patents is the way to go, then start doing it yourself and prove to everyone else that it works and you benefit. Don’t bother to wait until DC changes the laws. And if you feel that someone else will then patent what you have put out there and stop you from using your own invention, take out a patent and once you have it, make it available for everyone to freely use.
There seems to be too much focus here on “We can’t do what we want because others are stopping us” and not enough on “Here’s a workable solution we can implement now.”
Hey, I’m pretty sure I still have a post under moderation here …