Can inventors earn more without patent and IP laws?

[SteveA]

(...from a conversation on another thread)

There are few disagreements that information that is freely usable by anyone is more valuable to society as a whole, than the same information with needless restrictions on its use. The patent system was created with the view of it being a necessary evil to assure
inventors could benefit from their work, but is it necessary? If there's a greater benefit to everyone without the patent and IP systems, how can inventors capitalize on this?

Imagine seeing something like this:

"Invention for sale: New Carberator - improves gas mileage by 5%, with 10% less costs in construction than current leading designs.

Details available upon public compensation of $250,000"

(With typical arbitration available over disputes)

Multiple people, likely the automotive industry could offer to pay to have this information released and, when satisfied, the inventor reveals the details of the creation.

I think there's no need to use anything other than physical property rights, contractual agreements and laws against fraud, the same as any other industry, to protect the ability of inventors to earn from their work. People could even create third party industries to handle all the marketing and sales of inventions for the inventor as well as a private replacement for the patent system, but using purely contract laws. You could do a similar thing using trade journals or symposiums as well to market and sell patents (compile multiple inventions together and sell all the ideas to the affected industries as a package deal).

So everything is basically the same as selling a physical object but instead because the information when released would be freely available to the public, you can sell to everyone at the same time.

Consider the side benefits of this as well:

If an engineer worked for an aerospace company improving plane designs, currently we have a system where his creations only benefit one company, primarily, whereas without patents his creations apply to the entire industry!

1) Instead of multiple aerospace engineers redesigning things for different companies, the entire industry (with much more resources) would hire engineers with all parties benefitting greater

2) The overhead of the patent systems courts, lawyers, paperwork and police are removed,.

3) Inventors don't need to view the industry as a potential minefield if something they created is viewed as having been patented by someone else.

4) We'd be on even footing with countries that use our patent books as a play guide.

5) Illegal copying would be history while assuring inventors were still satisfactorily compensated and you wouldn't have people feeling we need laws to regulate the software industry because the problems with federally granted patent and IP monopolies (like the poll we had on software).

6) No more anti-trust laws would be needed and there would be no more motivation to simply purchase a competing patent and leave it legally unusable - to no ones benefit.

7) There would be no available potential abuses to have someones work literally stolen in the physical sense by having someone else patent the idea and denying you the use of it.

8) The production industry would be detached from engineering - no single producer would have a legal monopoly to produce something, so there'd be more competition, specialization and efficiency in production industries.

9) Technology would progress faster because inventors would find no benefit or need to redesign something to get around current patents. They'd move on to better things that had greater market demand, instead of redesigning wheels.

And that's why inventions would benefit people more and be able to demand an even greater compensation than they do now - all in the voluntary fashion of free trade too.

Even Thomas Jefferson knew the patent system was an abuse waiting to happen as it already had priorly in England. The principle behind it sounds great, just like the prescription drug plan for the elderly, but just like many other such well intentioned ideas, when backed by force and denying of free market alternatives, it's prone to monopolization corruption and stagnation.

[Milton Bradley]

It seems to me that relaxing the rules would create an environment where only the (already) rich could prosper.


It almost seems as if it would introduce the worste mechanism from the free market into patent law. It would give the rich the ability to steal successful, proven technologies, and produce a quality product, then lowball anybody who tried to compete with their price. Like the free market, the person with the biggest pile of cash could lower prices until the competition capitulates, then they recover any losses by raising the price once the competition is bankrupt, and out of business.


I think this would negate any intended advantage it was supposed to create.

[Prometheus]

I honestly don't believe that this system would work. INveltors make *incredible* sums of money off of royalties and lisencing. It would be difficult for them to get that much money any other way.

Not only that, but then academic research would stagnate, because the information would be held hostage for money, instead of shared freely under a patent.

Besides, most inventions/discoveries are done by big companies, not individual researchers.

[tman_ndsu08]

Like the free market, the person with the biggest pile of cash could lower prices until the competition capitulates, then they recover any losses by raising the price once the competition is bankrupt, and out of business.

Incorrect.

Once the company starts to raise prices, a new competitor will come forth to lowball them. In a free market, it's impossible to control 100% of the market.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Incorrect. Once the company starts to raise prices, a new competitor will come forth to lowball them. In a free market, it's impossible to control 100% of the market.

I still say it lead to an environment that favors those with the largest piles of money. So there are a few players, that is still going to be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority.

[SteveA]

It seems to me that relaxing the rules would create an environment where only the (already) rich could prosper.

I think you're wrong. Under the current system, rich can buy up patents and hold a true monopoly. Whereas without it, anyone could try anything without having to worry about whether or not someone already purchased the patent rights.

It almost seems as if it would introduce the worste mechanism from the free market into patent law.

Wrong, we don't have free markets. That's what a lot of capitalists are frustrated with. We have a lot of socialist planning, regulation, and federally granted monopolies already. The disparities in income you see aren't from a natural competition but legally enforced biases in competitive ability.

It would give the rich the ability to steal successful, proven technologies, and produce a quality product, then lowball anybody who tried to compete with their price.

You're thinking of improvements in production technology. That has nothing to do with inventions. If someone else could take an invention and mass produce it cheaply, that only helps give incentives to inventors.

Also, you couldn't "steal" something without patents, you could only duplicate it. An inventor would worry less about the details of production and instead just concentrate on creating valuable information.

Like the free market, the person with the biggest pile of cash could lower prices until the competition capitulates, then they recover any losses by raising the price once the competition is bankrupt, and out of business.

Again, that's regarding production technologies.

Is it possible to see a large competitive production house pay people well to have a large supply of new products to build and maintain a large market share? Sure, I guess so. But what's the problem as long as noone can see anything better to do?

See, the problem now is that people DO see possible improvements but are legally unallowed to change things. Now, if you free these up then the larger companies might have to get more competitive to maintain their markets, but that's not the problem, but the benefit of free markets. The problem is artificially restricting people from making something better.

I honestly don't believe that this system would work. INveltors make *incredible* sums of money off of royalties and lisencing. It would be difficult for them to get that much money any other way.

They make lots of money because people want the products. If you increase the value of the ideas and resulting products, there's potentially even more to earn. So why couldn't an engineer earn more money to create a product for an entire industry versus a single company, with legal overheads for the patent system also?

... then academic research would stagnate, because the information would be held hostage for money, instead of shared freely under a patent.

You actually have this one backwards, I believe, after IP laws were put in place if you look, you'll much of the research in univeristies is being purchased by companies and unavailable to others anymore. (Considering that public monies flow into education, this seems like theft to me)

Besides, most inventions/discoveries are done by big companies, not individual researchers.

Not exactly true. It's just the large companies that have bought and are holding the patents, so that few individuals are free and able to start up competition elsewhere. Of course large companies generate their own ideas but you'll see that when something new comes along outside this, it's quickly bought out and the patents given over. That isn't entirely bad but it continually places more and more technology as effectively off limits, and removes competitive pressures.

Anyone who was involved in computers 20 years ago will be able to tell you a mere upgrade to an operating system shouldn't cost hundreds of dollars. The prices are skyrocketing while quality isn't improving much.

*hint* we used to do just fine without IP laws.

[SteveA]

Here, you want another example of how IP laws effectively allow for theft?

Guess who invented the idea of windows and guess who holds the rights to it?

[SteveA]

Here's another example of how the patent system allows for theft of ideas:

I worked for a company building a product. When I learned of what they were working on, I told them there are much better ways of simplifying and spent a few days and came up with a circuit about 20 times smaller.

The owner of the company pulled out a patent and asked if what I'd done was anything like that in the patent - it was almost identical.

(I could list a few more things but they tend to be either like the above or finding multiple patents all overlapping the same technology, while it's unclear specifically what's novel about the patents, except maybe that someone thought the idea should be patentable in the first place, and then having to spend tons of time trying to document things or redesign it so more obviously differs - though still doing the same thing. It's a massive game with courts, lawyers, lawsuits and I've come to believe it's true that large businesses and government truly do sleep a little too close together)

I'll resist detailing my education, but basically I've placed around 3rd in Southern California in mathematics and computer science, received numerous awards in my High School (including chemistry and would have easily gotten eletronics too, if they'd have had the subject available, including almost having received the government and physics awards there except I believe the teachers decided to share the wealth, which is fine because I never really did much with them anway)

But the point is, I've got some personal insights on these laws because of having been there. Just like maybe 80% of the people surveyed on the computer software question thought the solution is to add yet another law to control how software updates are handled - it's just create a problem and use more laws to try to fix those problems, and more laws to fix the ones from that. You'd think intellectual property laws would be a boom for someone like me, right? Think again. What benefit do I gain from them? I already hold a monopoly in the areas I'm competitive in and there's no law that can change or improve that. Wasn't the intent of those to promote creativity? Well, how does it help having to keep projects I work on at home secret, because of the potential someone else might take the ideas and patent them? I don't want to show the best ideas I have, not because I'm worried someone else will benefit from them but because I don't want to be at the mercy of someone else if they happen to get the law involved. And then if an inventor creates something, are they truly expected to search through millions of patents and attempt to find if their ideas are in conflict with other ideas there? Well, the case is that likely 90% of the time you will find conflicts, but we just "fudge" things a little and allow ideas to overlap and expiration periods to exist etc. so that the obvious problem of giving one person the rights to other people thoughts doesn't hit too hard.

So the patent system creates something where the more creative your thoughts are, the more likely you are to be effectively owned or at least suable. It's an insult that I've practically written off bothering to deal with it. When people see what's happening, they'll change it but in the meantime we'll live in an artifically stagnating IP landscape.

[Prometheus]

SteveA is right about this. You all know he is right. Let's just leave it at that. I would have said the exact same thing.

I have nothing to add but my knowledge of the phameceutical industry. Without patent laws, many lifesaving drugs would have never been financed. This point is almost not debatable. That's just how it is.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Prometheus SteveA is right about this. You all know he is right. Let's just leave it at that. I would have said the exact same thing. I have nothing to add but my knowledge of the phameceutical industry. Without patent laws, many lifesaving drugs would have never been financed. This point is almost not debatable. That's just how it is.

Look, you were the one earily (on the other thread) that said basically after a couple large posts I put up there, nothing, except that the IP issue had already been resolved and was in no further need of debate.

And then again, same thing.

It's fine. You have your opinion, I have mine. It just sucks to be stuck in a democracy.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I still say it lead to an environment that favors those with the largest piles of money. So there are a few players, that is still going to be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority.

A few large players is completely different than one monopoly. For most markets, that's basically what we have now anyway.

I would even argue that a few large players controlling 90% of the market is what's best for us.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 A few large players is completely different than one monopoly. For most markets, that's basically what we have now anyway. I would even argue that a few large players controlling 90% of the market is what's best for us.

Assuming they were truly independent, I think you're right. Though some industries gain less from economies of scale and might perform better with things on an even finer scale.

I'm not trying to imply that attempting to regulate things to predetermine how many large companies can exist helps, because that would defeat most the purpose of free markets by effectively dictating that some companies aren't allowed to benefit by being more competitive but a method to arbitrate disputes like the courts can provide a balance to the system.

[SteveA]

(I misposted here on accident but can't find how to delete it)
SteveA

[Athena]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 A few large players is completely different than one monopoly. For most markets, that's basically what we have now anyway. I would even argue that a few large players controlling 90% of the market is what's best for us.

How is this best? Do you see any problems with this?

[Athena]

Quote by: SteveA (...from a conversation on another thread) There are few disagreements that information that is freely usable by anyone is more valuable to society as a whole, than the same information with needless restrictions on its use. The patent system was created with the view of it being a necessary evil to assure inventors could benefit from their work, but is it necessary? If there's a greater benefit to everyone without the patent and IP systems, how can inventors capitalize on this? Imagine seeing something like this: "Invention for sale: New Carberator - improves gas mileage by 5%, with 10% less costs in construction than current leading designs. Details available upon public compensation of $250,000" (With typical arbitration available over disputes) Multiple people, likely the automotive industry could offer to pay to have this information released and, when satisfied, the inventor reveals the details of the creation. I think there's no need to use anything other than physical property rights, contractual agreements and laws against fraud, the same as any other industry, to protect the ability of inventors to earn from their work. People could even create third party industries to handle all the marketing and sales of inventions for the inventor as well as a private replacement for the patent system, but using purely contract laws. You could do a similar thing using trade journals or symposiums as well to market and sell patents (compile multiple inventions together and sell all the ideas to the affected industries as a package deal). So everything is basically the same as selling a physical object but instead because the information when released would be freely available to the public, you can sell to everyone at the same time. Consider the side benefits of this as well: If an engineer worked for an aerospace company improving plane designs, currently we have a system where his creations only benefit one company, primarily, whereas without patents his creations apply to the entire industry! 1) Instead of multiple aerospace engineers redesigning things for different companies, the entire industry (with much more resources) would hire engineers with all parties benefitting greater 2) The overhead of the patent systems courts, lawyers, paperwork and police are removed,. 3) Inventors don't need to view the industry as a potential minefield if something they created is viewed as having been patented by someone else. 4) We'd be on even footing with countries that use our patent books as a play guide. 5) Illegal copying would be history while assuring inventors were still satisfactorily compensated and you wouldn't have people feeling we need laws to regulate the software industry because the problems with federally granted patent and IP monopolies (like the poll we had on software). 6) No more anti-trust laws would be needed and there would be no more motivation to simply purchase a competing patent and leave it legally unusable - to no ones benefit. 7) There would be no available potential abuses to have someones work literally stolen in the physical sense by having someone else patent the idea and denying you the use of it. 8) The production industry would be detached from engineering - no single producer would have a legal monopoly to produce something, so there'd be more competition, specialization and efficiency in production industries. 9) Technology would progress faster because inventors would find no benefit or need to redesign something to get around current patents. They'd move on to better things that had greater market demand, instead of redesigning wheels. And that's why inventions would benefit people more and be able to demand an even greater compensation than they do now - all in the voluntary fashion of free trade too. Even Thomas Jefferson knew the patent system was an abuse waiting to happen as it already had priorly in England. The principle behind it sounds great, just like the prescription drug plan for the elderly, but just like many other such well intentioned ideas, when backed by force and denying of free market alternatives, it's prone to monopolization corruption and stagnation.

Would this make Bill Gates success impossible? He is worth millions, because supposedly he owns product information. If he couldn't have exclusive rights to this product information, what would he have?

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Athena How is this best? Do you see any problems with this?

Because a few large companies is what keeps competition the highest and prices the lowest.