b) Patents allow separation of innovation from manufacturing.
> If patents do exactly what they are intended to do, they damage periods of rapid, cheap progress.
Maybe you are right, and George Washington and James Madison were wrong, but you need to make better argument considering all aspects, not just state your opinion as a fact.
To convince us from your viewpoint explain what Bell would have done differently without patents. Using only trade secrets. Would Bell Labs have done so extensive basic research? Secondly explain how you allow small inventors to exist without patent system.
Small inventors are already squished by the patent system, because they're used by larger players to squish inventors.
Plus, big players can basically start a lab and patent ALL the innovations and inventions. There's no guarantee that these corporations will commercialize the technologies for the benefit of humanity.
For example, 3D printing was stymied by initial innovators. It was only when expiration of patents that allowed the open source 3d printing ecosystem to flourish. In any case, we missed at least a decade of development in 3d printing technology.
Not as much as you think. They would be squished completely without patent system. Because current patent system is not perfect you are advocating something worse.
A small and micro entities can file patents very cheaply. In the US fees are cut 60 to 75 percent.
Without patents, you can't small or medium sized R&D companies that file patents would go extinct.
(Btw. I strongly favor mandatory licensing for patents. Mandatory licensing might be immediate or after a year or something).
>For example, 3D printing was stymied by initial innovators.
Can you make argument that it would not be stymied the same way or worse without patents (trade secret).
How would you know that the patent system works better than nothing?
Maybe you have to consider that an idea is fundamentally flawed in the first place.
Without patents, you can't small or medium sized R&D companies that file patents would go extinct.
Not exactly true. SpaceX deliberately didn't patent their technologies, and yet they succeeded brilliantly. They are now the Goliath of the industry.
Comparative analysis between regiments and across the history. For crude overview, consider the US vs China. Also see SpaceX case below.
Also my original point: separating manufacturing and innovation. Small inventor rarely is the same as manufacturer. Without patent, inventor has nothing to sell. They can only give away.
>Maybe you have to consider that an idea is fundamentally flawed in the first place.
I am. I'm researching and learning the subject and I am hoping good counterarguments. So far people just come up with ad hoc arguments on the spot. Normative and ideological blanket statements are not very good.
>SpaceX deliberately didn't patent their technologies, and yet they succeeded brilliantly.
yes: trade secrets.
SpaceX is interesting case and their reasoning is interesting. SpaceX has started filing patents (Starlink Project), but not very aggressively in their core rocket technology. They choose to keep their core technology trade secret. Their reason for keeping trade secrets is very interesting: “We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China. If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book.” – Elon Musk
Sticking to the case study at hand, the patent system set up Bell to do a bunch of basic research, patent it, then lock out small competition. I'm cool if you're cool with that, but the antitrust isn't the reason growth was enabled, it was that the patent system was functioning as expected and the government disabled it.
When they wanted growth, they revoked the patents. Which is sensible. And revoking the patents allowed faster growth. You may not like how they treated Bell and changing the rules on half way through is indeed unfair, but them's the outcomes.
These are blanket statements and ideological normative statements. You don't engage in argument.
The US constitution reads [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
Sounds very similar to the “opinion” of the parent comment.
Are you arguing otherwise? (I can’t tell exactly what you’re referring to as “parent”.)
* (and copyright, but patents are the subject here)
To me it seems like
> If patents do exactly what they are intended to do, they damage periods of rapid, cheap progress.
is very much in line with the wording of the constitution. I guess in order to see that you have to also believe that monopolies hurt rapid, cheap progress. I think most reasonable people do.
The counter argument is “if you can’t make a return on investment in innovation, you tend to get less investment in innovation”. Whether that return comes from monopoly in corporate behavior or legal protection from patents, somehow you want to allow some (but limited) profit to be made from investments in R&D.
You can't have clear idea of what what the constitution means without knowing what was the terminology and context when it was written.
George Washington and James Madison wrote and promoted patent system extensively outside what is written in the constitution. Examples: Madison Federalist No. 43 etc. President Washington called on Congress to create a patent system in the first the State of the Union address ever. It resulted the Patent Act of 1790.
The big picture story here is firstly to grant a patent to give Bell a monopoly on an idea. Then recognise that giving it a monopoly on an idea slows progress, so remove the monopoly.
If patents do exactly what they are intended to do, they damage periods of rapid, cheap progress. They allow the people who were there first to capture the value.