Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Feb 2013 16:49 UTC
Legal "The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity, unless productivity is identified with the number of patents awarded - which, as evidence shows, has no correlation with measured productivity. Both theory and evidence suggest that while patents can have a partial equilibrium effect of improving incentives to invent, the general equilibrium effect on innovation can be negative. A properly designed patent system might serve to increase innovation at a certain time and place. Unfortunately, the political economy of government-operated patent systems indicates that such systems are susceptible to pressures that cause the ill effects of patents to grow over time. Our preferred policy solution is to abolish patents entirely and to find other legislative instruments, less open to lobbying and rent seeking, to foster innovation when there is clear evidence that laissez-faire undersupplies it. However, if that policy change seems too large to swallow, we discuss in the conclusion a set of partial reforms that could be implemented." Written by economics professors Michelle Boldrin and David K. Levine, published in the winter issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Via John Siracusa.
Permalink for comment 551567
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: one easy limitation
by some1 on Tue 5th Feb 2013 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: one easy limitation"
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

Patents are not granted by "a reasonable person", they are granted by patent office clerks. The problem with bad patents is not that the legal system can't cope with them. You can already invalidate them in court. The problem is that the litigation is expensive, often enough to put small players out of business.

Also you wouldn't want to depend on "reasonable person's" (i.e. layman's) opinion on highly technical subjects, that are what technology patents are about.

Reply Parent Score: 3