The problem with abolishing patents is that while it might make it easier for companies, it would make it absolutely impossible for small-time, independent inventors to advance human knowledge. What incentive is there for a couple guys to build a time machine in their garage when, as soon as they try to mass produce their invention, any number of larger companies better equipped to manufacture things at scale will just make their invention and sell it for less?
It's much, much more complicated than that.
Some large companies are bureaucracy with poor incentive structures. So innovative tech passes by them. Their size also slow them down a lot even when they want to adopt the new tech. They cannot focus as intensively as a small corporation can.
Beside, not everybody will necessary see the usefulness of inventions. That where entrepreneurs come in. They risk their money, invent better marketing techniques, make it cheap and efficient, and so on. Inventors do important jobs, sure. But who will market the inventions and risk capitals and so on?
Makerbot Inc is making lot of money with open hardware while also doing some R&D to improve their products. They're making it big without patents. Arguably, patents would actually impedes the growth of small hacker enterprise like Makerbot Inc.
The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.
Have you ever look at the history of patents and their economic consequences? Patents doesn't disclose secrets or whatever consequences you imagine. It shift technological research from secretive inventions to easily reverse engineered inventions, but doesn't increase them. They are more deadweight costs rather than incentive.
Patents are the problem. However, nobody ever brother to look into the history of patents, much less question their assumption.
It's much, much more complicated than that.
Some large companies are bureaucracy with poor incentive structures. So innovative tech passes by them. Their size also slow them down a lot even when they want to adopt the new tech. They cannot focus as intensively as a small corporation can.
Beside, not everybody will necessary see the usefulness of inventions. That where entrepreneurs come in. They risk their money, invent better marketing techniques, make it cheap and efficient, and so on. Inventors do important jobs, sure. But who will market the inventions and risk capitals and so on?
Makerbot Inc is making lot of money with open hardware while also doing some R&D to improve their products. They're making it big without patents. Arguably, patents would actually impedes the growth of small hacker enterprise like Makerbot Inc.
The problem with patents in this article isn't the patent itself, but the fact that it covers software, which is 50% math and 50% business process and shouldn't ever have been patentable in the first place.
Have you ever look at the history of patents and their economic consequences? Patents doesn't disclose secrets or whatever consequences you imagine. It shift technological research from secretive inventions to easily reverse engineered inventions, but doesn't increase them. They are more deadweight costs rather than incentive.
Patents are the problem. However, nobody ever brother to look into the history of patents, much less question their assumption.