Here is a Shelby Cobra, printed 3D.
You could not have a better example of how patents suppress innovation.
Quote from the interview:
In fact, we see that where there are patents, extremely little goes on. When there are no patents, people compete to provide ever better. There is nothing to support that idea that..
Ask any patent attorney: How many patents issued since 1789? About 8 million. How many of those patented ideas ever turned into a product? Very close to zero. Of those extremely few ever to turn into a product, how many were profitable? Again, almost none. All of this is true. Is it important? Sure, if you are a patent attorney with two kids in college, it is important you don't know this.
There is nothing in the law that provides that anyone gets rich because of patents. The law provides only that the "intellectual" "property" "rights" (statutory monopoly powers) contribute to the commonweal. Even if the means to accomplish this goal was patents, one penny more than that is too much, under the law.
The idea patents are warranted to allow people who would otherwise decline to innovate if not for a mechanism to recover their costs is pure fiction, something made up outside of the law. Getting rich off patents is obviously contrary to the intent of the law.
People come up with the screwiest and desperate defenses of their sinecure:
And these college professors know this how? Or is this just another wild stab in the dark trying to defend the indefensible?
The funny thing about this argument is he uses 3D printers as his example, where we see, now that the patents are not possible, and explosion of innovation. Amazing myopia.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
| sciencedaily.com |
Quote from the interview:
It's the one where the key patents covering this ... expired in 2011, so there has been an absolute explosion in innovation in these machines.Right. With patents, all is suppressed, no one makes any money. Patents off, and there is an explosion in innovation. But wait wait... no patents, no innovation! It cannot be true there are countless people willing to innovate and create without patents, for that is the only possibility. This is what we were taught in school, and we have the unbankruptable student loans while working at Starbucks to prove it.
In fact, we see that where there are patents, extremely little goes on. When there are no patents, people compete to provide ever better. There is nothing to support that idea that..
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;Example 8,925,112 of how our patent regime premise is bogus.
Ask any patent attorney: How many patents issued since 1789? About 8 million. How many of those patented ideas ever turned into a product? Very close to zero. Of those extremely few ever to turn into a product, how many were profitable? Again, almost none. All of this is true. Is it important? Sure, if you are a patent attorney with two kids in college, it is important you don't know this.
There is nothing in the law that provides that anyone gets rich because of patents. The law provides only that the "intellectual" "property" "rights" (statutory monopoly powers) contribute to the commonweal. Even if the means to accomplish this goal was patents, one penny more than that is too much, under the law.
The idea patents are warranted to allow people who would otherwise decline to innovate if not for a mechanism to recover their costs is pure fiction, something made up outside of the law. Getting rich off patents is obviously contrary to the intent of the law.
People come up with the screwiest and desperate defenses of their sinecure:
Patents have helped 3D-printing technology advance, but not by giving a patent holder temporary control over a particular printing technology. Patents, particularly key patents on critical platform technologies, have pushed 3D-printing technology forward by introducing constraints. Patent-induced constraints force technological ingenuity — which, in turn, drives innovation. The reason several different 3D-printing techniques exist today is, in part, the constraints imposed by patents that blocked key technologies and hence required the creation of workarounds.Get it? Because patents block people on one path, they are forced to innovate, otherwise there would not be as much innovation.
And these college professors know this how? Or is this just another wild stab in the dark trying to defend the indefensible?
The funny thing about this argument is he uses 3D printers as his example, where we see, now that the patents are not possible, and explosion of innovation. Amazing myopia.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment