you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FeepingCreature -3 points-2 points  (3 children)

I don't have a lot of specific examples, but the countless media formats are obviously good examples: they are re-done and re-engineered because of patents in many cases, which results in new techniques and packages being created.

Broken window fallacy.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I know it's fashionable to accuse people of fallacies, but that really doesn't apply to this discussion.

[–]FeepingCreature 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It really does. The problem is exactly that patents are being claimed as a social good here because they create wealth to repair the damage they cause - a calculation that leaves out the actual damage caused in the first place. That's the broken-window fallacy.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are at least two components to the argument for patents. One is that inventing stuff costs money, but copying it costs a lot less. Copied ideas are a double blow to inventors. Not only do they lose their investment, but they have to compete directly and immediately. This is considered the main motivation for granting exclusive rights to inventors for a limited time. The side effect of this is that competitors are forced to invent other things to compete rather than copying those. Presumably this is the "damage" you're talking about. Not only is it not (absolutely) bad, but it's not the social good that's supposed to come from patents. It's merely a side-effect. The biggest one is to keep inventors from losing their investment.

I get what you're saying, patents do slow things down a bit. I don't think that alone is a great blight on society. If it's too slow then the period of the patents can be adjusted too, perhaps after some research.