Patent Costs Outweigh Benefits In Many Cases
from the more-people-catching-on dept
It's no surprise that we have trouble with the patent system and have seen all sorts of examples of why it often seems to lead to results that are the opposite of the system's intended purpose (to promote innovation). Over the past few years, the amount of research supporting the position that patents are harmful to innovation has been growing rapidly, and the latest addition looks to be quite useful. James Bessen and Michael Meurer have looked at the issue and have discovered that, especially recently, patents have become more costly than helpful. Studying the data on patents, they found that the value of patents is quickly being surpassed by the expense of patent litigation. In fact, they found that the more research a company did, the more likely they were to get sued for patent innovation. This probably isn't too surprising to many around here, but it clearly goes against the idea of what the patent system is supposed to encourage. Bessen and Meurer are working on a book discussing this very topic, which will probably end up on the big reading list.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
New patent Idea...
Ohh wait, prior art. Oh well better get my application in anyway and contact my lawyer.
"First!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New patent Idea...
I work for a largish corporation and there is at least a yearly if not quarterly push by corporate to actively submit patent ideas to the company lawyers. Got forms, incentives, lawyers lined up and the skids greased, ready for that continuous wave of "good" ideas.
I have a hard time trying to distinguish between obvious and new&improved. Everything I dream up seems obvious. Judging by what the Patent Office hands out as patents, I think there is a serious lack of exposure to the real world.
3-wire cable carries electric power with extra ground for protection! new patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a little surprised...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a little surprised...
It's basically the same bill we've discussed in detail before. Didn't seem worth discussing any more until it actually gets passed (which still seems unlikely).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong reasoning
What is not considered is the income from the sales of various products that are protected by patents. This covers almost the entire US manufacturing industry and would be in the range of trillions of dollars (yes thats a t).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong reasoning
What is not considered is the income from the sales of various products that are protected by patents.
How is that stopped if there are no patents? You can still sell goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong reasoning
It is really simple. Imagine that tommorrow all patents on all products are lapsed. The sales of the companies which have patented products will go down. The value of the patent is the reduction in the sales in this hypothetical event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong reasoning
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reasoning
Also I take issue with the time frame to make a copy of a product. 5 years is too long. Once the market knows that patent protection is not existent, copies can start being produced extremely quickly (of the order of months).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong reasoning
Aspirin and Tylenol no longer have patent protection, but both Bayer and McNeil PPC continue to sell their respective products, despite the plethora of generic alternatives and other analgesics. It was the lapsing of the patent that forced these companies to develop new products.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong reasoning
Aspirin and Tylenol no longer have patent protection, ...........
In the case of Asprin and Tylenol, they were under patent protection for 20 years. When patent protection ended, they had significant market share and that was maintained (by good management). But they had the initial market share given by the patent. So, maybe there are effects of a patent on sales even after the 20 years.
Also, most medical drugs reduce in price after patent protection ends. This causes loss in sales, as demand is (mostly) inelastic.
In a general sense, when patent protection lapses, competitors enter the market, price reduces and sales reduce. Simple economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents useful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Opinion is:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treat acne with clearpores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]