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 551591
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: one easy limitation
by galvanash on Wed 6th Feb 2013 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: one easy limitation"
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

If your from the US, our patent law has a similar concept...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_ar...

I think the overall point your missing is that the patent clerks job is to judge the patent based on these legal fictions... Their personal expertise in technical matters has nothing to do with it.

In other words, the patent clerk is supposed to put themselves into the shoes of someone having "ordinary skill in the art" when judging a patent - and I strongly stress supposed to. The reality is they pretty much just approve anything and let the courts work it out, which is most of the problem in itself.

Edited 2013-02-06 03:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4