| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
What is a Patent? | |
<
< | The patent system is bursting at the seams. In many areas, if not in all, the patent system no longer accomplishes what it is designed to do, mainly, to to promote the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" For evidence of this fact, look no further than the crumbling music industry or the broken pharmaceutical system. Given that the system is breaking down, other than dismantling it in its entirety, is there a way to fix it? This is the question I'd like to explore.1 | >
> | The patent system is bursting at the seams. In many areas, if not in all, the patent system no longer accomplishes what it is designed to do, mainly, to to promote the "Progress of Science and useful Arts." For evidence of this fact, look no further than the crumbling music industry or the broken pharmaceutical system. Given that the system is breaking down, other than dismantling the patent system in its entirety, is there a way to fix it? This is a question I'd like to explore.1 | | | | |
<
< | The current system gives patent holders many of the same rights a real property owner would have. Patent holders have the right of possession, right to sell, and the right to exclude. In addition, similar to property rights, the government can use a patent as long as it pays just compensation. Kelo ruled that a government takings of private land for economic development constitutes "public use"; the same might be said of patents. Patents can and should be rescinded whenever the patent clearly and unambiguously stands in the way of economic progress or social well-being. | >
> | Patent holders have the right of possession, right to sell, and the right to exclude. But that right, like most rights, is deeply qualified. The law that giveth and the law may taketh away. But, unfortunately, the penumbras of capitalism pollute government patent policy that is inevitably deferential to large corporate-patent Megatrons.
Patents--Some Theory
The theory behind patents largely derives from capitalism and can be concisely summarized as such:
1. Patents give rights to future profits.
2. Thus, patents create incentives to research, to develop, to invent, to produce, to expend resources to bring the patented item into being.
In economic terms, the fixed monetary cost of bringing a product to market is offset by the prospects of profiting off of that good. The cost for Pfizer to produce a single pill of Viagra may exceed a billion dollars. But, from there, the cost of each additional dose of "Boner Juice" is trivial, less than a penny perhaps. The (often obscene) markup compensates from the billion dollar accounting loss from the first pill. Abstractly, I see no ethical problem with this business strategy.
Questions must be asked about the ethics of the practice, however, when the parenthesis in the preceding paragraph disappear, when profit margins fly through the glass ceiling. | | | | |
<
< | Why do we have Patents? | | | | |
<
< | Patents give their owners rights to future profits. In doing so, patents create incentives to research, to develop, to invent, to produce, to expend resources in order to bring the patented item into being. Patents may also encourage disclosure. But the patent system may be a relic of the past. Patents originated in a different time when inventions consisted of tangible goods: think telephone or light bulb. Now, a substantial portion of patented inventions consist of the intangible: think genes and software. This author finds it unlikely that the founding fathers intended to grant patent protection to algorithms and chemical formulas. In other words, the modern umbrella of patent stretches too far. So it goes. | | | The purported benefit of a patent may be over-matched by accompanying harms. Patents can be quite obstructive and create gridlock when rights are fractured among too many parties, creating an "anti-commons." Bargaining and transaction costs may become prohibitive when patent owners each individually own their own stop signs with the power to halt development. Here, the patent system works backwards. The latest and greatest Viagra may be stuck in a lab somewhere because the costs associated with its development are too prohibitive. Even more fundamental and less theoretical are systemic costs required to maintain an intricate patent system. These costs include the cost of maintaining of a regulatory agency, litigation costs, and other legal costs.
| |
>
> | It happened here. And here. Here too.
"patent breaks" are rare and the entire too deferential to patent-dependent corporations. | | | How are we fixing the the System? | | | One last comment: I don't think the total abolition of the patent system, at this point in time, is a political feasible reality. After doing more reading, I don't support the ideas put forth here for a few different reasons. I still think this is an interesting thought though.
| |
<
< | | >
> | <--
* Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = MatthewZorn
--> | | | -- MatthewZorn - 20 April 2010
|
|