***I have trouble putting much stock into studies that try to find a statistical correlation between software patents and innovation.***
Tim, so you just assume the tech sector is stifled, or impinges on various ideological measures of innovation? You want to say patents don't correlate with innovation, but you don't want to measure the correlation?
Thats fine if you approach patent policy from a natural rights rather from utilitarian perspective, which I believe you do. However, patent policy is informed by utilitarian concerns- no idiosyncratic ideologies.
So Tim, you admit your example of Verizon v Vonage is anecdotal. Uhhh, sense of perspective is important here. The market is not concerned about any single company, its concerned with the entire sector.
If Vonage closes down, one wonders if things would be different if it found work-arounds to Verizon's patents when it should have.
***It seems to me that a legal system that makes success in the marketplace a function of how smart your lawyers are, as opposed to how smart your engineers are***
Then the smart engineer is not really smart. Simple.
Gorman
· 2 years ago
I also think that your last point about proving independent creation goes back to your previous noting of the fact that the legal system stifles innovation. You still have to have good lawyers to prove that the software was created independently. I guess the question is.....how can the law both provide protection & remedies while staying out of the way of innovation?
Gorman
· 2 years ago
I also think that your last point about proving independent creation goes back to your previous noting of the fact that the legal system stifles innovation. You still have to have good lawyers to prove that the software was created independently. I guess the question is.....how can the law both provide protection & remedies while staying out of the way of innovation?
Julian Sanchez
· 2 years ago
"Thats fine if you approach patent policy from a natural rights rather from utilitarian perspective, which I believe you do."
Where on earth did that come from? Even leaving aside that I've always taken Tim to be more or less a consequentialist, what "natural rights perspective" yields the view that patents in other arenas are justifiable, though not in software, where there ought to be copyrights? That'd have to be a fairly tortuous deontology.
AK
· 2 years ago
Noel, you don't agree with Tim. We get that.
He's been pointing out what he thinks is wrong with software patents. Could you try explaining how they promote innovation?
Noel
· 2 years ago
Julian, to state it simply- Tim wants the freedom to tinker, he feels its a natural right. Nothing wrong with that, but its worth note when considering Tim's evidence against software patents. Evidently, he does not like economic evidence, but emphasizes situations where patents impinge on his natural right to tinker.
AK, check out one of my writings- Patent Licensing Markets Shape the Technology Industries. Google it on IPcentral...
SailorRipley
· 2 years ago
Hey Noel, you should really try a lot harder to make a case for yourself, because so far, you suck really bad at providing any proof, arguments or facts to substantiate your pov
Noel
· 2 years ago
Mr Sailor, thanks for the *nice* reply. Why don't you go read the article I posted (I don't want to put a link here, spam filter) and then say something to me.
Don Marti
· 2 years ago
Noel, thanks for the link to the Somaya and Teece paper, They write, "in some cases, transaction costs in licensing are so high as to render licensing modes unviable, irrespective of their positive effects on innovation."
Look at the actual costs to create software, and compare to the transaction costs around patenting it. Considering the number of patentable innovations in any software product, in order for the pro-software-patent argument to fly, someone has to come up with a really inexpensive license clearinghouse system.
Who's going to get all the patent trolls in a room together and get them to start an organization like ASCAP or BMI?
Noel
· 2 years ago
You are right Don, Teece/Somaya make that point, and so far as I understand Teece/Somaya, in such a case they would propose that a firm either adopt an integrated development model, or leverage various forms of IPR clearance (patent pools, cross-licensing, etc). The Teece/Somaya paper addresses the former point based on its framework of how costs shape firm organization, and the latter point is explicitly addressed towards the end of the paper. I don't see the passage having the significance you may imply though.
Michael Masnick
· 2 years ago
I have trouble putting much stock into studies that try to find a statistical correlation between software patents and innovation.
Indeed, overall correlation is not the key here as there are way too many other variables. What Noel and Greg seem to be missing is the mountain of evidence that looks more narrowly at cases of strengthened IP laws that show stricter intellectual protectionist laws clearly slow down innovation and creation.
There are plenty of studies that look at cross country innovation, as well as innovation pre- and post- IP introduction, and the same result always comes out: no increased, and often decreased, production due to IP laws.
There's been some very recent research that highlights this in a very dramatic way -- and how decreased protectionism counter intuitively opens up huge opportunities. I'm writing something up for it (not for Techdirt just yet, but it will appear there eventually).
Noel
· 2 years ago
Masnick, see research by Lee Branstetter and Keith Maskus on how IPRs have helped nations industrialize and form sophisticated economic sectors. Branstetter in particular has studied the effects of patents following nations' strengthening their IPR policies.
Of course, even if there is persuasive economic evidence against patents, Tim wouldn't buy into it. He would opt instead to look at one patent at a time and rely on anecdotal evidence to show how the patent system should fall to molehills. If you read his post above differently, let me know.
Segolene
· 2 years ago
It is recurringly and overwhelmingly fucking depressing that people who claim to be more than .000000000001 percent libertarian think it's good thing for the government to reward what it considers good economic behavior with an artificial monopoly. (You could copy and paste your language about incentivizing whatever you like to a discussion of monolithic teacher unions, or orange-sellers' collectives.)
If you want to have any credibility with respect to some notional "Natural Right" then simply do away with accidental infringement of all so-called IP. (Accidental infringement of copyright is mathematically impossible.)
Also, finding comfort in the idea that a "little guy" is arbitrarily empowered to wield a government cudgel against a "big guy" is not the customary libertarian position, for good reason.
I say this having made more money off of (ridiculously, offensively) bad software patents than an MLB second-stringer and a bit less than a starter make in a year. So thanks for making me a millionaire, suckers.
The people who do really innovative and investment-heavy stuff hate this bullshit, as do most people who know anything about it.
Final also: most people become libertarian after some experience of the deep stupidity of government. There is nothing like hearing about what has been granted a patent to feel the depth of that brainlessness, except maybe watching congress-critters legislating math and expounding the need for trucks not to back up on the internet tubes. IE, a lot of people who view the world through a tech lens are starting to see things our way and if you align us with or taint us by proximity to the techno-fuckwits we will lose a great opportunity.
Michael Masnick
· 2 years ago
Noel, again, Branstetter's research tends to support those who don't see the value of patents.
Of course, even if there is persuasive economic evidence against patents, Tim wouldn't buy into it. He would opt instead to look at one patent at a time and rely on anecdotal evidence to show how the patent system should fall to molehills. If you read his post above differently, let me know.
I'm not going to speak for Tim, but you seem to be misunderstanding his position. He is responding to the claim that there's *no* evidence of patents harming innovation. When someone presents you with an absolute like that, all you need is a single example to disprove it.
That doesn't mean that he's not interested in the economic evidence. In fact, I'd find that hard to believe. What Tim said (or I believe he said) was that he doesn't find the lack of evidence that Greg points to compelling, because Greg is pointing to overall correlation, which is meaningless, rather than more important economic research that allows you to dig deeper into the actual impact of IP protectionism.
However, the overall point is that to disprove the absolute (no evidence of innovation being stifled) all you need is a single example. And Tim has found plenty of those "single" examples.
Noel
· 2 years ago
Masnick, Branstetter will fall on both sides of the fence just like any other empirical researcher. I was not pointing him out *just* to show the case for patents, but somebody you should check out.
All Comments
Tim, so you just assume the tech sector is stifled, or impinges on various ideological measures of innovation? You want to say patents don't correlate with innovation, but you don't want to measure the correlation?
Thats fine if you approach patent policy from a natural rights rather from utilitarian perspective, which I believe you do. However, patent policy is informed by utilitarian concerns- no idiosyncratic ideologies.
So Tim, you admit your example of Verizon v Vonage is anecdotal. Uhhh, sense of perspective is important here. The market is not concerned about any single company, its concerned with the entire sector.
If Vonage closes down, one wonders if things would be different if it found work-arounds to Verizon's patents when it should have.
***It seems to me that a legal system that makes success in the marketplace a function of how smart your lawyers are, as opposed to how smart your engineers are***
Then the smart engineer is not really smart. Simple.
Where on earth did that come from? Even leaving aside that I've always taken Tim to be more or less a consequentialist, what "natural rights perspective" yields the view that patents in other arenas are justifiable, though not in software, where there ought to be copyrights? That'd have to be a fairly tortuous deontology.
He's been pointing out what he thinks is wrong with software patents. Could you try explaining how they promote innovation?
AK, check out one of my writings- Patent Licensing Markets Shape the Technology Industries. Google it on IPcentral...
Look at the actual costs to create software, and compare to the transaction costs around patenting it. Considering the number of patentable innovations in any software product, in order for the pro-software-patent argument to fly, someone has to come up with a really inexpensive license clearinghouse system.
Who's going to get all the patent trolls in a room together and get them to start an organization like ASCAP or BMI?
Indeed, overall correlation is not the key here as there are way too many other variables. What Noel and Greg seem to be missing is the mountain of evidence that looks more narrowly at cases of strengthened IP laws that show stricter intellectual protectionist laws clearly slow down innovation and creation.
There are plenty of studies that look at cross country innovation, as well as innovation pre- and post- IP introduction, and the same result always comes out: no increased, and often decreased, production due to IP laws.
There's been some very recent research that highlights this in a very dramatic way -- and how decreased protectionism counter intuitively opens up huge opportunities. I'm writing something up for it (not for Techdirt just yet, but it will appear there eventually).
Of course, even if there is persuasive economic evidence against patents, Tim wouldn't buy into it. He would opt instead to look at one patent at a time and rely on anecdotal evidence to show how the patent system should fall to molehills. If you read his post above differently, let me know.
artificial monopoly. (You could copy and paste your language about incentivizing whatever you like to a discussion of monolithic teacher unions, or orange-sellers' collectives.)
If you want to have any credibility with respect to some notional "Natural Right" then simply do away with accidental infringement of all so-called IP. (Accidental infringement of copyright is mathematically impossible.)
Also, finding comfort in the idea that a "little guy" is arbitrarily empowered to wield a government cudgel against a "big guy" is not the customary libertarian position, for good reason.
I say this having made more money off of (ridiculously, offensively) bad software patents than an MLB second-stringer and a bit less than a starter make in a year. So thanks for making me a millionaire, suckers.
The people who do really innovative and investment-heavy stuff hate this bullshit, as do most people who know anything about it.
Final also: most people become libertarian after some experience of the deep stupidity of government. There is nothing like hearing about what has been granted a patent to feel the depth of that brainlessness, except maybe watching congress-critters legislating math and expounding the need for trucks not to back up on the internet tubes. IE, a lot of people who view the world through a tech lens are starting to see things our way and if you align us with or taint us by proximity to the techno-fuckwits we will lose a great opportunity.
Of course, even if there is persuasive economic evidence against patents, Tim wouldn't buy into it. He would opt instead to look at one patent at a time and rely on anecdotal evidence to show how the patent system should fall to molehills. If you read his post above differently, let me know.
I'm not going to speak for Tim, but you seem to be misunderstanding his position. He is responding to the claim that there's *no* evidence of patents harming innovation. When someone presents you with an absolute like that, all you need is a single example to disprove it.
That doesn't mean that he's not interested in the economic evidence. In fact, I'd find that hard to believe. What Tim said (or I believe he said) was that he doesn't find the lack of evidence that Greg points to compelling, because Greg is pointing to overall correlation, which is meaningless, rather than more important economic research that allows you to dig deeper into the actual impact of IP protectionism.
However, the overall point is that to disprove the absolute (no evidence of innovation being stifled) all you need is a single example. And Tim has found plenty of those "single" examples.
63t2wh.rtehe.biz
i0eld.poiui.info
wrs.gfngfn.biz
pwbh.rtreh.biz
ucp8.xczv.info