Patent Systems Not an Effective Incentive

Dear Marcy,

You wrote:

can anyone think of an invention (a product, a system, a medicine)
that was developed "openly", such as is the case of open source
software, and is used widely today?

"Literature and a market for literary works emerged and thrived for
centuries
in the complete absence of copyright." Against Intellectual Monopoly, p. 31.

Anyone is free to invent or develop anything, by himself or with the
collaboration of whoever wants to join in; and assuming the product
or system does not fall into a category that requires government
approval (medicine needing approval of the FDA, for example), the
inventor/developer could theoretically just place the product in the
market.

I didn't know about this. In which country is this the case?

Warm regards, Michael

Dear Michael,

1. I again emphasize "and is used widely today." There is no scarcity of books, articles, and Internet news reports today...all patented.

2. That was my point, there is no un-patented innovation these days, although we are free to invent anything we want and sell it on Ebay!
So why do we not? But, of course, please correct me if I am wrong in saying that we *are* free to do so.

I remember reading many years ago how the inventor of the "smiley face" was so distressed because he never thought of patenting his creation and felt he was missing out on gobs of royalties. I also remember thinking that had he patented the smiley face, would it have become so popular given the cost of using it.

I also remember reading how the original developer of the windows concept in computer programs did not patent his creation properly, Gates glommed on to the concept, and turned it into the most popular program in history, in spite of the ridiculous cost to consumers. Whatever happened to software companies that in the late 70's and early 80's were desperately trying to be first to develop a working, patentable, emphasis on patentable, windows-type program (I can attest to their herculean efforts, since a few of them were my customers when I was lending officer at a bank!!)

Well, sorry for my getting carried away!! I sometimes just fail to grasp the Libertarian penchant for simply saying if the Big Bad Government just removed all laws, everybody would be happier...It seems to me laws (how folks choose to arrange their interaction with their neighbors) are a more complex subject than such an approach allows.

Thanks for listening.

Regards,

Marcy

Dear Marcy;

The way around a patent system which does stifle innovation is to turn to licensing. If someone has a great invention you license it to a manufacturer or if a new software program to a software developer for production rights. Or as Apple does open source applications for its iPod once they get approved for useage by Apple. Microsoft does have open applications so developers will piggy back thereby making the main Microsoft software more useful. Linux is wide open and Firefox for new applications.

Also on the Smiley face thing it would have been needed to be copyrighted not patented and if the creator of the Smiley face had used it to identify his business it would have been trademarked like a logo of the company name.

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

Dear Ron,

This is by no means an argument, but an expression of my confused mind! The distinction between licenses, patents, copyrights seem to me as distinctions without a difference; like libel, slander, defamation ("you lied, Dude!) Thusly, is or is not one free to invent/develop anything one likes; if required put our creation through any required FDA or other tests; and, when all tests are passed, sell the creation by any means one likes? If the answer is "yes", then why do folks seek patents/copyrights/licenses? In other words, if patents/copyrights/licenses are not mandatory, why the fuss?

Marcy

Dear Marcy;

Libel, slander and defamation of character have distinctive differences which I won't go into at this time.

What licenses, patents and copyrights do is to "provide protection" to someones idea or creativity so others won't pick up on it and run with it and makes lots of money off someone elses sweat equity. The creation of the patents and copyrights was as is usally the case someone got burned and they turned to the state to protect that from hapopening ever again. In other words, protectionism brought about by the state.

For literally hundreds of years such things were not needed until government stepped in with the appropriate messing about and ending up with the usual unintended consequences. Licenses, patents and copyrights are not needed but people get them out of sheer necessity to protect themselves because everyone else is doing it.

Absent those laws there would be no need as people would work out arrangements between themselves to protect their ideas ot inventions or stories but without the state involved in the process creating work for attorneys.

The FDA is not needed as well for medical equipment and medicine as was thwe case previously before the inception of the FDA the manufacturer took the risk and did not fob the risk off on the government or as is the case today getting laws through congress which says if the FDA says it's okay you can't sue me because something went wrong with the medical device or the medicine.

As always it's about Big Business and Big Government getting themselves together to provide protectionsim and anti-competition laws and in essence create government granted monopolies.

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

Ron - If I restated your response below but replaced 'patents' and 'copyrights' with 'private property'(real estate), would you agree with that as well? Aren't property rights, so cherished by libertarians essentially state sponsored protectionism and monopolistic? Of course there are differences.. ideas can be replicated X times so there's less scarcity involved. I get that.

But there is also a shortage of good ideas in general, and as former tech startup founder I can also tell you there is shortage of people willing to invest in good ideas - especially if they fear a Microsoft or some other shameless company will drop in and replicate it. So in my case, I have selfishly sat on my technology as I can't personally afford to file for patent protection. (even during the dotcom bubble only a fraction of startup ideas where actually funded)

Now I'm not necessarily arguing for patent protection but I'm not convinced the world would be a magically better place without them. The drug patents are a good example. Even without the FDA, drug companies would need to spend 10's of millions on R&D and testing on products or face the wrath of the market as well as lawsuits. Maybe it takes 5yrs to come out with a new pill. And it takes 5 days to analyze and copy it using spectroscopy equipment. So who in their right mind is going to fund that operation? Probably would end up being the State as it will be easy for them to prove how capitalism has 'failed' yet again, blah blah

my perspective anyway. Not sure what the future would be like. Maybe I'll plow through Tucker's analysis next week when I have more time.

cheers,

David

btw - your comment on licensing..how is that possible unless the licensor has ownership of the work?

Good point David,

Patents have been with us for hundreds of years. I don't think these are the real big problem with our society today. Naturally patents can be abused and cause problems but they also have a beneficial a function. No one needs to get a patent if they don't want to and no one needs to register his property (real estate) - - - you may find squatters in your house. One does not need FDA approval to get a patent. these are totally different ideas. A patent says this is yours - - - the FDA says you can sell it to other people on the open market.

The government does interact with business and always has but we are now seeing new ways that they interact that we have not seen before at least on a wide scale. The article and video clip in the websites below may help - - -

http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/5164/1/There-Is-Nothing-Wrong-With-Going-Green/Page1.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY

Bob

Dear Ron,]

Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to explain. I see that our disagreement does not rest on technicalities such as what patents/copyrights/licenses do, but whether individuals would indeed freely come to arrangements that would be beneficial to all parties involved. David's example offers a good comparison -- everyone is free to build or purchase a house and not file a deed on it, but no one does. Bob states the same point I do -- everyone is free to invest in R & D, develop a new product, and try to sell it in the open market without bothering with a patent; but no one does. You believe the reason no one does is because government has inserted itself in the situation; whereas I believe no one does because no one wants his property, be it a house or an invention, taken away.

Carrying my assumption a step further, is government necessarily the entity to ensure that one's house or one's invention not be taken away. No. We can carry Uzis and defend our property that way. We can hire Blackwater. We can vote to privatize the patent/copyright/licensing process, and let the private entity defend one's property by whatever means necessary.

Marcy

Dear Marcy;

I also do not believe the government is the answer however it is the 500lb elephant in the room suffocating inovation and because it is there people believe they have to avail themselves of it to get "the protection" of their writing or invention. In other words use it or lose it.

I would prefer that the government patent and copyrights went away and inventors or writers or whomever relied on private agreements backed up by force if necessary for trespassing on "property". As property rights prevail unless of course you have property in the perfect location for government to declare it should be taken over by eminent domain and given to a politically connected developer for "public use" to increase the tax base.

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

Dear Ron,

Of course, as libertarians, we would love to see government agencies replaced by private entities. As you note,patent/copyright/licensing functions now done by government could conceivably be carried out through private enforcement. So, to me the situation would boil down to the same functions, with concomitant stifling/lack of stifling, done either by government or by private entity.

Marcy

These points in defense of patents and such make sense to me as well, although I am still very lukewarm on the overall concept of intellectual property. At the least, I think there should be stronger limits than currently exist -- perhaps a patent/copyright/trademark/etc. could guarantee exclusive rights to an idea/creation/work of art/logo etc. for 25 years or the life of the individual creator, whichever is longer, up to a maximum of 100 years. I certainly do not think corporations should be allowed to monopolize the fruits of creativity in perpetuity.

  I question Ron's contention that "For literally hundreds of years such things [licenses/patents/copyrights] were not needed until government stepped in," and would like to see more documentation of that point. I do think the law has a valid purpose in protecting legitimately owned physical property like a house against violations, although I would like to see a georgist or geo-libertarian type system adopted with regard to land ownership.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Starchild - good point on the corporatism aspect. We (I) are still assuming that in a libertarian utopia only individual rights are upheld by the state, so no corp patents. Walt Disney the man is long gone so either the Mickey Mouse copyright dies with him or he would need to will it to an actual person. I would lean towards the former.

Also, although I'm in favor of property rights as a concept it's definitely not the cleanest part of the libertarian philosophy as you know. The founding fathers definitely struggled with it (wasn't it in the draft declaration? "Life, liberty and property" ? Great trivia question for a day like today. There is also potentially the Georgist angle which I dread to bring up, which would suggest a tax is in order to those who hold patents and whatnot.. hmmm

cheers,

d

Dear Starchild and All Others;

A brief history of patents. Please note the following: a patent is not a right to use but a right to exclude the use thereof therefrom.

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

A patent is not a right to practice or use the invention.[4] Rather, a patent provides the right to exclude others[4] from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, which is usually 20 years from the filing date[3] subject to the payment of maintenance fees. A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public. Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, given away, or simply abandoned.

A patent being an exclusionary right does not, however, necessarily give the owner of the patent the right to exploit the patent.[4] For example, many inventions are improvements of prior inventions which may still be covered by someone else's patent.[4] If an inventor takes an existing, patented mouse trap design, adds a new feature to make an improved mouse trap, and obtains a patent on the improvement, he or she can only legally build his or her improved mouse trap with permission from the patent holder of the original mouse trap, assuming the original patent is still in force. On the other hand, the owner of the improved mouse trap can exclude the original patent owner from using the improvement.

ANCIENT PATENT HISTORY

In 500 BC, in the Greek city of Sybaris (located in what is now southern Italy), "encouragement was held out to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury, the profits arising from which were secured to the inventor by patent for the space of a year." [22]

NOTE THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

The Florentine architect Filippo Brunelleschi received a three year patent for a barge with hoisting gear, that carried marble along the Arno River in 1421.[23]

NOTE THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION
Patents in the modern sense originated in 1474, when the Republic of Venice enacted a decree by which new and inventive devices, once they had been put into practice, had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain the right to prevent others from using them.[24]

NOTE THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

England followed with the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 under King James I, which declared that patents could only be granted for "projects of new invention." During the reign of Queen Anne (1702–1714), the lawyers of the English Court developed the requirement that a written description of the invention must be submitted.[25] The patent system in many other countries, including Australia, is based on British law and can be traced back to the Statute of Monopolies.[citation needed]

NOTE THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

In the United States, during the so-called colonial period and Articles of Confederation years (1778–1789), several states adopted patent systems of their own. The first Congress adopted a Patent Act, in 1790, and the first patent was issued under this Act on July 31, 1790 (to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for a potash production technique).

NOTE THE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

Ron,

  Perhaps I should have been more specific in my last message. The part of your statement I was questioning is not that governments have been intervening via patent law and the like for a long time -- of that I was not in doubt, although the information you've posted here about the details of that history is educational -- but the notion that there were hundreds of years before government stepped in where licenses, patents, copyrights, and similar intellectual property protections were not needed.

  By the way, I presume you copied the material below from online somewhere -- do you recall the source? It's helpful to include that info when copying an extended body of info into an email discussion.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild;

googled history of patents and got wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

Ever since man attached a rock to a stick to make a club there have been inventions one after another after another without patents. Ever since cavemen scrawled art on their cave walls and then took to papyrus and so on writing has not needed copyrights.

Can you see Gutenberg trying to patent the printing press and getting no wheres fast? Or based on ancient history of scrolls and the writing thereof and lending libraries for scrolls - yes there were such things ancient greece and roman wise there were no copyrights on those scrolls.

As far as pure intellectual property like software going the ancient route when ancient Babylonia came up with the concept of ZERO could that have been patented intellectual property wise?

Or like today where a yoga master is trying to copyright a methodology of yoga practice as his creation and no one else better not use it or be sued for copyright theft.

Patents and copyrights and any other creation did not need protection with government laws who always managed to get their cut of the take one way or another or as has been noted providing lots of work for patent attorneys or in the realm of software and its architecture intellectual property rights.

Companies who develop new medicines or medical equipment can get protected by ownership property rights. Or as is the case with China they copy anything and everything and sell it and make a bundle.

Or India where various drugs are manufactured using the formulas and selling them through Canadian pharmacies to US customers who get a huge price break they could not get here in the US buying brand name versus generic and the price differential being literally thousands of dollars less per year for the prescription drug. The US manufacture takes a hit but a consumer in need of the medicine gets a price break.

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

Ron,

  Let me try a third time to articulate my objection, since I've clearly twice failed to do so. The full paragraph in your previous message which I was questioning read:

"For literally hundreds of years such things were not needed until
government stepped in with the appropriate messing about and ending
up with the usual unintended consequences. Licenses, patents and
copyrights are not needed but people get them out of sheer necessity
to protect themselves because everyone else is doing it."

  Before patents and similar reserved use protections existed, anyone could have taken and used an inventor's idea without compensating him. This is the same prospect that would face an inventor in the modern context who took her invention to the marketplace without obtaining any government guarantee of exclusive ownership. So to say that protections like patents "were not needed" in the former circumstance but are a "necessity" to protect oneself today is what does not make sense to me. The only possible context I can see in which it makes sense would be in cases where a non-inventor is allowed to patent a previously non-patented invention and thereby legally prohibit even the original creator of the item from using it without permission.

  While looking for information on how intellectual property disputes were handled prior to the introduction of patent law (I couldn't readily find anything worthy of note), I did come across an excellent essay by libertarian Stephen Kinsella -- http://mises.org/books/against.pdf -- which has me more firmly convinced that intellectual property is a flawed concept. It is rather long and dense, but very well argued, imho. I would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in the topic.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild;

Mull this SF Chronicle article about copyright violations of music by cell phone users with their ring tones.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/07/05/MNLG18FSLF.DTL

http://snipurl.com/lug5g [www_sfgate_com]

Point Of Order: Patents do not give "exclusive ownership" but give the "right to exclude" others from using the device. Today smeone could add somehting to a previouslt patented invention and sell the new device with a patent on it but the original owner of the original patent without the new addition could if they chose stop the sales of the new added device unless an arrangement were made for compensation.

Or to use a previous example how would have Gutenberg gotten a patent to stop anyone else from building a printing press?

With a patent the Wright Brothers got an exclusive use on the airplane backled up by a US Supreme court decision against Curtiss-Wright for building an airplane therbey excluding Curtiss-Wright from using the technolgy.

In another twist when the telegraph was invented and patented by Morse an attorney working for the inventor got the bright idea to sell the use of the telegraph technology and helped himself and the Morse make millions from the sale of the technology - in other words he licensed the technology.

And in another little twist Morse got Congress to appropriate $30,000 to string a telegraph wire between Washington and Baltimore of 40 miles for the first public demonstration in 1844 with the message of " What hath God wrought" and the rest as the saying goes became history.

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis Res Publica
Morte Ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

Ron,

  I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me here. How does what you wrote below relate to my previous message below that?

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear Starchild;

It don't relate at all!!!!! Wadja expect a clear transparent answer? Hah!!!

Muddy is as muddy does as muddy goes. : - )

Ron Getty - SF Libertarian
Hostis res Publica
Morte ai Tiranni
Dum Spiro, Pugno

Starchild,

Govt patents and copyrights prohibit individuals from using their own property peacefully. This borrows a leaf from Socialism.

I risk getting banned from our list for saying this, but David and Starchild are "idea and invention socialists."

More history of innovations before the monopoly state stepped in:

"Literature and a market for literary works emerged and thrived

> for centuries

in the complete absence of copyright." _Against Intellectual
Monopoly_, p. 31.

Why not read the Jeffrey Tucker essays for a clear, informative view
from someone who's against intellectual monopoly? Jeff runs the
Mises Institute and Ron sent us the links to Jeff's essays.

Even better, read Boldrin and Levine's _Against Intellectual Monopoly_.
Their publisher has made it available as a free pdf file.

Warm regards, Michael