ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Blocking innovation and research"

m (Software innovation happens without patents: Lots of widely used innovative software was and is developed without patents. Microsoft DOS and Windows are two examples. After Microsoft attained a)
(standard formatting)
(34 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Software patents stiffle innovation.
+
Software patents block innovation and research.  This is in addition to the decades of proof that [[software progress happens without patents]].
  
==Software innovation happens without patents==
+
==Analyses==
  
Lots of widely used innovative software was and is developed without patents.  Microsoft DOS and Windows are two examples.  After Microsoft attained a dominant market position, they started saying patents were necessary for software development, but they actually wrote their software before they started getting patents.
+
This has been summed up by Lord Justice Jacob in the 2006 UK ruling [[Aerotel v. Telco]]:
  
A clearer example is [[free software]] such as the GNU/Linux and FreeBSD operating systems which were developed without patents.
+
<blockquote>
 
+
"''The patent system is there to provide a research and investment incentive but it has a price. That price (what economists call “transaction costs”) is paid in a host of ways: the costs of patenting, the impediment to competition, the compliance cost of ensuring non-infringement, the cost of uncertainty, litigation costs and so on. There is, so far as we know, no really hard empirical data showing that the liberalisation of what is patentable in the USA has resulted in a <u>greater</u> rate of innovation or investment in the excluded categories. Innovation in computer programs, for instance, proceeded at an immense speed for years before anyone thought of granting patents for them as such. There is evidence, in the shape of the mass of US litigation about the excluded categories, that they have produced much uncertainty.  If the encouragement of patenting and of patent litigation as industries in themselves were a purpose of the patent system, then the case for construing the categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is made out. But not otherwise.''"
The World Wide Web is another example, and email is another.
+
</blockquote>
 
 
Software innovation and research clearly do not need patents. Further, there is a lot of evidence (below) to show that patents are actually blocking innovation and research in the field of software.
 
  
 
==Studies==
 
==Studies==
 +
For a full list, see [[Studies on economics and innovation]].  Here we highlight a few:
 
* [[An Empirical Look at Software Patents]] "''...We find evidence that software patents substitute for R&D at the firm level; they are associated with lower R&D intensity...''"
 
* [[An Empirical Look at Software Patents]] "''...We find evidence that software patents substitute for R&D at the firm level; they are associated with lower R&D intensity...''"
 
* [[The EuroLinux petition]] - 400,000 signatures against the harm of software patents to innovation and [[Preventing competition|competition]]
 
* [[The EuroLinux petition]] - 400,000 signatures against the harm of software patents to innovation and [[Preventing competition|competition]]
  
 
==Examples==
 
==Examples==
When explaining why Google were not supporting the patent-free Ogg Theora codec, Chris DiBona repled "''here's the challenge: Can theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?''".<ref>http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020382.html</ref>
+
When explaining why [[Google]] were not supporting the patent-free [[Ogg Theora]] codec, Chris DiBona repled "''here's the challenge: Can theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?''".<ref>http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2009-June/020382.html</ref>
 +
 
 +
Most{{ref}} software innovation happens through leap-frogging: company A comes up with an idea, company B replicates it with extra features or improvements, company A improves it further.  This process is in the interests of innovation and in the interests of the consumer.  It expands the market, and very often both A and B benefit from it. Patenting can only slow this process down, to the detriment of the consumer, the market, and the companies who supply that market.
 +
 
 +
Very often the first company with an idea doesn't get it quite right, or fails to realise its true potential.{{ref}} Their product fails because they execute it badly or market it badly.  Another company then builds on the idea and succeeds where the first company failed. (Example: the [[Wang]] object technology patents, acquired by [[Kodak]] after Wang failed, versus [[Sun Microsystems inc.|Sun]] - {{help|more details necessary!}} Should the patent system reward failure?
 +
 
 +
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 +
 
 +
* [[More than innovation]] - software patent policy should take many factors into consideration, not just innovation
 +
* [[Software progress happens without patents]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
* [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/02/how-patent-trolls-are-a-tax-on-innovation.html How Patent Trolls Are A Tax On Innovation], by venture capitalist Fred Wilson
+
* [http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/02/how-patent-trolls-are-a-tax-on-innovation.html How Patent Trolls Are A Tax On Innovation], by [[Statements from venture capitalists|venture capitalist]] Fred Wilson
 
* [http://actualites.epfl.ch/presseinfo-com?id=707 Markets Are Better Than Patents in Promoting Intellectual Discovery, Says Caltech-led Team of Economists]
 
* [http://actualites.epfl.ch/presseinfo-com?id=707 Markets Are Better Than Patents in Promoting Intellectual Discovery, Says Caltech-led Team of Economists]
* [http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20071101145010612 Telling the Truth About Software Patents and Innovation], by Andy Updegrove
+
* [http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20071101145010612 Telling the Truth About Software Patents and Innovation], by [[Andy Updegrove]]
 +
* [http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/innovation.html The Most Important Software Innovations], by [[David Wheeler]]
 +
* [http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2008/07/07/intellectual-property-regime-stifles-science-and-innovation-nobel-laureates-say/ Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates Say]
 +
* "Effects of Software Patents on Free/Open Source/User Innovation", [http://www.researchoninnovation.org/swconf/hippelslides.ppt slides] / [http://www.researchoninnovation.org/swconf/Effects_vonHippel.html video (works with Gnash)]
 +
* [http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2010/01/do-patents-slow-down-innovation.html Do Patents Slow Down Innovation?], by venture capitalist [[Brad Feld on software patents|Brad Feld]]
 +
* [http://blog.mises.org/10217/yet-another-study-finds-patents-do-not-encourage-innovation/ Yet Another Study Finds Patents Do Not Encourage Innovation], 2 Jul 2009, '''blog.mises.org'''
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
<references />
+
{{reflist}}
  
  
[[Category:Arguments]]
+
{{footer}}
 +
[[Category: Arguments]]

Revision as of 07:57, 14 October 2014

Software patents block innovation and research. This is in addition to the decades of proof that software progress happens without patents.

Analyses

This has been summed up by Lord Justice Jacob in the 2006 UK ruling Aerotel v. Telco:

"The patent system is there to provide a research and investment incentive but it has a price. That price (what economists call “transaction costs”) is paid in a host of ways: the costs of patenting, the impediment to competition, the compliance cost of ensuring non-infringement, the cost of uncertainty, litigation costs and so on. There is, so far as we know, no really hard empirical data showing that the liberalisation of what is patentable in the USA has resulted in a greater rate of innovation or investment in the excluded categories. Innovation in computer programs, for instance, proceeded at an immense speed for years before anyone thought of granting patents for them as such. There is evidence, in the shape of the mass of US litigation about the excluded categories, that they have produced much uncertainty. If the encouragement of patenting and of patent litigation as industries in themselves were a purpose of the patent system, then the case for construing the categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is made out. But not otherwise."

Studies

For a full list, see Studies on economics and innovation. Here we highlight a few:

Examples

When explaining why Google were not supporting the patent-free Ogg Theora codec, Chris DiBona repled "here's the challenge: Can theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?".[1]

Most[reference needed]

software innovation happens through leap-frogging: company A comes up with an idea, company B replicates it with extra features or improvements, company A improves it further.  This process is in the interests of innovation and in the interests of the consumer.  It expands the market, and very often both A and B benefit from it. Patenting can only slow this process down, to the detriment of the consumer, the market, and the companies who supply that market.

Very often the first company with an idea doesn't get it quite right, or fails to realise its true potential.[reference needed]

Their product fails because they execute it badly or market it badly.  Another company then builds on the idea and succeeds where the first company failed. (Example: the Wang object technology patents, acquired by Kodak after Wang failed, versus Sun - Can you help? more details necessary!
Should the patent system reward failure?

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

References