ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Blocking innovation and research"

(Software innovation happens without patents: quote at length a great part of the UK's Aerotel v. Telco ruling)
m (Software innovation happens without patents: underline)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
This has been summed up by Lord Justice Jacob in the 2006 UK ruling [[Aerotel v. Telco]]:
 
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.''"
+
:"''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.''"
  
 
==Studies==
 
==Studies==

Revision as of 06:33, 15 August 2009

Software patents block innovation and research.

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 dominant market position, they started saying patents were necessary for software development, but they actually wrote their software before they started getting patents.

A clearer example is free software such as the GNU/Linux and FreeBSD operating systems which were developed without patents.

The World Wide Web is another example, and email is another.

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.

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]

External links

References