Another Nobel Laureate Points Out How The Patent System Holds Back Innovation
from the the-economics-are-clear... dept
It always amuses us when supporters of the patent system attack our views on patents as being somehow uninformed. Over the years, we've pointed to plenty of rather detailed research on how the patent system tends to hold back innovation -- and how there's no correlation between stronger patent systems and innovation. Usually, when we point this out, the response is to insult us, rather than respond to the research. Fortunately, though, those doing this kind of research keep getting plenty of validation for their work. We've already pointed out that at least one Nobel Laureate in Economics, Joe Stiglitz, has been speaking out on how patents harm innovation. Now comes the news that one of the latest economics Nobel winners has also done research in the space. Evan R.S. writes in to point out that the NY Times article on the winners notes that Nobel winner Eric S. Maskin recent research is on how patents can hold back innovation. The good folks over at Against Monopoly (who include some economists who have been leading the charge in studying this topic) point us to Maskin's paper on this topic. The paper argues that patents tend to harm innovation in high tech fields, mainly because so much innovation is sequential and complementary -- at which point handing out monopolies is guaranteed to slow down the innovation process, because the innovation gets more expensive (need to license any time you do anything), more limiting (because you have to get approval before innovating) and much more time consuming (especially if you have to keep going to court). This isn't a new idea or even new research -- but it's yet another reminder that the economic research continually shows how patents will often hold back innovation, rather than help it.
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: economics, nobel laureates, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Patent Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Patent Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation's Greed
In a society that has always been very possessive (cite America's founding documents) it is no surprise that we value the inherent title to our creations (even God wants his children to acknowledge he created them). To validate this concept and give it a system to follow for parity across the board we have given ourselves this wondrous dam we called patent law. Although, without these laws binding society to the terms of the innovator it is argued that man would be much less inclined to advance in any sector. By protecting the innovator to the point of profit after excessive time spent "at the drawing board" society encourages innovation with the profit incentive.
This is not to say that I so much consider our system flawless, but it is not without merit. I believe this was the idea touched upon when mentioning your preference for patent laws to be "extremely handicapped." My only challenge: put yourself in the innovator's role, what motive do you have in this society to cause a breakthrough if someone can stand on your shoulders and make something better?
NE Economist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation's Greed
Easy. The motive is to continue to innovate, to make something better and to beat the competition yourself. In doing so, that's how you build a big sustainable business.
The only situation in which patents makes sense is where there's no ongoing innovation, but a single innovation marks the pinnacle of innovation.
If we took your question and phrased it concerning some other business, you'd realize how silly it sounded: Put yourself in the restaurant owner's role, what motive do you have in this society if someone else has a restaurant across the street?
It's easy, right? You compete by differentiating. And if the restaurant across the street copies your innovation, you keep innovating and you keep differentiating. It's that competition that drives innovation. The patents *slow* down that process by allowing someone to innovate once and be done. But in a world where innovation is a continuous process, you want competition to drive that process forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Innovation's Greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Innovation's Greed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pinnacle
This allows 1st time innovators to capitalize on their invention. Without it, large companies who have resources to bring products and services to market quicker than the sole innovator would benefit unfairly and squelch innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pinnacle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pinnacle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]