Once Again The Economist Thinks Patents Are Hindering Innovation And Need Reform
from the flip-flop-flip-flop dept
A bunch of folks I know who are focused on the problems of the patent system and who are pushing for patent reform have been eagerly sharing a recent Economist article discussing the problems of the patent system and how they're hindering innovation and doing real harm. No doubt, it's a good article that gets to the heart of many of the problems with the system. Some snippets:Patents are supposed to spread knowledge, by obliging holders to lay out their innovation for all to see; they often fail, because patent-lawyers are masters of obfuscation. Instead, the system has created a parasitic ecology of trolls and defensive patent-holders, who aim to block innovation, or at least to stand in its way unless they can grab a share of the spoils. An early study found that newcomers to the semiconductor business had to buy licences from incumbents for as much as $200m. Patents should spur bursts of innovation; instead, they are used to lock in incumbents’ advantages.Good stuff for the most part. Amazingly, the article even tosses out the idea that perhaps patents should be ditched entirely -- and notes that back in the 19th century, the Economist itself argued against any patent system at all. However, it walks itself back from that edge pretty quickly:
[....]
One aim should be to rout the trolls and the blockers. Studies have found that 40-90% of patents are never exploited or licensed out by their owners. Patents should come with a blunt “use it or lose it” rule, so that they expire if the invention is not brought to market. Patents should also be easier to challenge without the expense of a full-blown court case. The burden of proof for overturning a patent in court should be lowered.
Patents should reward those who work hard on big, fresh ideas, rather than those who file the paperwork on a tiddler. The requirement for ideas to be “non-obvious” must be strengthened. Apple should not be granted patents on rectangular tablets with rounded corners; Twitter does not deserve a patent on its pull-to-refresh feed.
Patents also last too long. Protection for 20 years might make sense in the pharmaceutical industry, because to test a drug and bring it to market can take more than a decade. But in industries like information technology, the time from brain wave to production line, or line of code, is much shorter. When patents lag behind the pace of innovation, firms end up with monopolies on the building-blocks of an industry. Google, for instance, has a patent from 1998 on ranking websites in search results by the number of other sites linking to them. Here some additional complexity is inevitable: in fast-moving industries, governments should gradually reduce the length of patents. Even pharmaceutical firms could live with shorter patents if the regulatory regime allowed them to bring treatments to market sooner and for less upfront cost.
One radical answer would be to abolish patents altogether—indeed, in 19th-century Britain, that was this newspaper’s preference. But abolition flies in the face of the intuition that if you create a drug or invent a machine, you have a claim on your work just as you would if you had built a house. Should someone move into your living room uninvited, you would feel justifiably aggrieved. So do those who have their ideas stolen.That's a weird way to reject its own idea, because patents aren't about "feelings," and the analogy of someone moving into your living room makes no sense, given the difference between rivalrous things (your living room) and non-rivalrous things (your ideas). And, indeed, the article defaults into the worst kind of patent support: the idea that patents are used to stop people from "copying" ideas, when that's almost never the case (it's almost always independent invention).
But the really odd thing about this is that the Economist actually seems to keep changing its position on patents. Back in 2010, it had a similar article arguing that the patent system was holding back innovation and that it needed serious reform to get rid of "frivolous" patents -- including those for business methods and software. But then, oddly, in 2011, the very same Economist... argued we needed more patents and that they should be approved faster. That article bizarrely argued that approving more patents would undoubtedly lead to more jobs... based on absolutely nothing. And then... just months later, the Economist, once again, argued they were hindering prosperity.
So, yes, it's great that the Economist is taking on this issue, but seeing as the magazine (which calls itself a newspaper) has a history of bizarrely flip flopping on the issue, it's still a little difficult to take it seriously.
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: innovation, patent reform, patents
Companies: the economist
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
But "The Economist" is totally biased in favor of moneylenders, mercantilists, and other parasitic grifters, not industrialists, small business, or the public.
Best definition ever: "Economists, an irrational tribe of short-sighted mathematicians"
Found at: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/03/Perfect-Storm-Engulfs-Canadian-Economy/?utm_source=mondayheadli nes&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=030815
Hurry up and run the "Hobbit hole" / copyright story, I've got a quip!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because how else can you patent someone else innovation by convincing the patent office it is a new idea, and then go on to convince a court that the real innovator infringes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd say check to see who the authors of the articles are. Different authors would pretty easily explain the seeming split personality, and it's not like it's unusual for a news organization to employee people of markedly different views from one another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The Economist is famous for not having bylines. There are no "authors" and often the magazine presents this as being because it's a whole "team effort" and its stories reflect that. So, yeah, I think the flip flopping is still an issue, given the magazine's general position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But "The Economist" is totally biased in favor of moneylenders, mercantilists, and other parasitic grifters, not industrialists, small business, or the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But "The Economist" is totally biased in favor of moneylenders, mercantilists, and other parasitic grifters, not industrialists, small business, or the public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
>"a little difficult to take it seriously"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zanny Minton Beddoes
She got the job in January of this year. Since then she's made some big changes to the editorial stance of the paper (magazine, whatever) - all vastly for the better, in my opinion. This is the latest result.
(The editor-in-chief approves the opinion pieces at the front of the magazine.)
I'm really happy with her - she's right on a lot of things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the paper doesn't have an official editorial stanc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance
I've been a subscriber for about 30 years; some positions come and go, others stick around for a long time.
They've been steadily against the Drug War for all that time, and steadily for the British position on American guns (Americans shouldn't have any).
Other things they've flip-flopped on, depending mostly on who is editor-in-chief at the time.
The most recent-but-one editor was John Micklethwait (2006-2014), who IMHO was the worst in a long time. He took a lot of stupid positions - he's a real supporter of the status quo and powers-that-be, Wall Street Journal style.
But the new editor since 1/2015 Zanny Minton Beddoes is just great.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You useless jackass.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good ideas in the leader, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]