The root cause
Posted Jul 15, 2012 19:35 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata
In reply to: The root cause
Parent article: Akademy: Defensive publications
You've got the question, or more accurately the burden of proof, the wrong way round.
Well, the question I stated is in fact the question that came up in this thread, that we would like to answer, so I don't know what conversation you're trying to have here.
(The question I assume you're referring to is what I worded in the last sentence of the post to which you replied: "would people innovate as much today if there weren't patents as they do with them?")
The patent people and their apologists want a superficially ridiculous monopoly on ideas (ie. on part of people's brains).
I believe you're setting up a straw man here. I don't believe a significant number of patent apologists claim that. Virtually everyone I see says the superficially ridiculous monoplies on trivial ideas that are happening in the current patent system are wrong. IBM, which has been granted more US patents than any other inventor in each of the last ten or so years, has called for patent reform. I believe IBM has said it would prefer a system in which, among other things, IBM got only a fraction of that number (because most of IBM's patents are trash just like everybody else's).
It's not superficially ridiculous to say that some innovation is motivated only by the possibility of recouping investment through the use of a patent. So I don't see any reason to place the burden of proof of whether that's true on the "yes" side. And it's possible no studies exist because it's too obvious.
to post comments)