Thursday, September 29, 2011

Free Markets By Ending Intellectual "Property"

Of the near 7 million patents issued in the US since 1789, almost nothing patented has ever turned into a product.

Of the extremely few patented ideas that have ever turned into an actual product, almost none has been profitable.

Any patent attorney can tell you this.  Stephan Kinsella is one such patent attorney, who holds his own patents, and is quite frank about all of this.

Of the items that were profitable, it is most likely they would have been profitable anyway, patent or not.

How come intellectual property law is a non-performer (or worse?)  Because products and services are constantly in development, and a patent is for a fixed idea.  If a patent is a thesis, the idea will provoke antithesis (a good alternative) in the minds of others.  Yet others will reflect on the thesis and the antithesis and synthesize yet another alternative.  The lively antithesis and synthesis are far enough away from the thesis to not infringe on the patented item.  Ossified, the thesis is overwhelmed by those who seek to serve others (antithesis and synthesis), the thesis goes no where.  It is condign punishment that those who try to control markets with ersatz laws generally fail.  Do not become one of them.

The value to the market is the division of labor producing better solutions for ever narrower groups.  Those thus satisfied are uninterested in the patented idea.  Such customers support the new businesses and wealth, defined as access to affordable options, is spread to more people.

The number one patent holder in USA, IBM, is open sourcing much of its patent book.  They've learned their lesson after a bruising few decades.

What matters in business is not control or monopoly, such as you get with patents, but customer service, such as you get with marketing.  It is not a patent that is valuable in business, but a customer list.  Your customer list, which takes less time and money to build than it does to gain a patent.

We live in a patent regime, and it is not likely to go away.  But by understanding that intellectual "property" is a net deficit helps one to build a business faster with less money spent. It saves time and money to know how things really work.

You recall the start of a business: what problem do you experience in a field you love?  What problem actually causes you to suffer, at some level.  And does working on the solution give you joy?  That combination is the dead giveaway that you found your calling, the work that you are meant to do.


2 comments:

Anonymous said...

After reading your book, I came to agree that patents are largely useless. You influenced my thinking in this regard.

Yet still I didn't have any personal experience to confirm that point -- until recently. I have a perfect case-in-point that illustrates your argument.

About a year ago I sent a message to you through your blog about a patent issue. I discovered that I was selling a product that a US business had patented in my country.

It really hurt because that product was selling so well and I had come to depend on it to give me the juice needed to jumpstart my fledgling business.

You suggested I offer to pay a royalty to the inventor, but that wasn't a possibility as the inventor is only interested in maintaining her monopoly power.

I took your insights about thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis to heart; it took me over a year to develop an alternative product, but I succeeded. After several prototypes, I got a small shipment to test out the market reaction.

The reaction was overwhelmingly positive. People stopped buying the patented product and started buying my new product. Customer feedback was overwhelmingly positive.

Now I'm developing this product into a more solid offering and attracting more and more customers.

In a way, the patent was a good thing because it gave me a kick in the pants and forced me to think innovatively.

And all this just proves your point that patents are useless.

-- Pax

Anonymous said...

Wow! What an amazing case study. Thanks for sharing this with the group. I'll definitely include this anecdote at future dinner parties if/when the topic of IPR ever comes up.

Its funny how so many people just naturally lean towards pro-IPR, without giving the issue the needed focus in order to really "get it". Who am I kidding? I used to be pro-IPR too. Realize now that I never really payed enough attention to the matter before forming an opinion...glad to finally see the light - and how that makes life so much easier!.

Congrats on your achivement. Wish you much future success.

Best,
-sash