[Patents] economic studies

[phm@a2e.de phm@a2e.de]

Gregory Aharonian wrote:

> Bernard writes:
> >and since it does impact the freedom of programmers, since it does
> >a cost in reducing competiton and increasing monopolies, since it does
> >have a cost in reducing fundamental freedom through the private
> >control of biotech standards and communication formats and protocols,
> >etc... but does not "promote Progress of Science and useful Arts"
> >software patents are both unconstitutional in the USA, and generally
> >harmful to society.
> >Thanks to Greg for the proof.
> 
> And since biotech patents do impact the freedom of biotech researchers,
> and do have a cost in reducing competition and increasing monopolies,
> since they do have a cost in reducing fundamental freedom through the
> private control of biotech standards and commericalization formats and
> protocols, etc... but does not "promote Progress of Science and useful
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
On what evidence is this assertion based?
sidenote:  Your talk about "biotech standards and .. formats" is
hilarious.

> Arts", biotech patents are both unconstitutional in the USA, and
> generally harmful to society.  Thanks to Bernard for the proof.

No, there is no proof yet.
If it was to be given, then it would be a sufficient reason to get rid of
biotech patents.
But that is not a matter for this discussion round.
 
> Same logic for hardware inventions as well.  In any field you can claim
> that there are enough researchers, especially academics with public
> funding, to promote the progress of science and useful arts without the
> need of patents.  Any field, including software.  Once again, there is
> nothing special or holy about software, so your arguments against
> software patents once again are arguments against the whole patent system.

This again is an extremely bold statement not backed by evidence. I
mentioned some serious studies and experiences that show that at least in
chemistry and pharmaceutics, patents seem to produce a market pattern that
is more conducive to progress of science and the useful arts.

> Indeed, an increasing amount of profits in the hardware design world
> are from the sales of semiconductor IP, i.e., VHDL/Verilog
> descriptions of new hardware devices and systems, at last count, over
> $500,000,000 a year.  The developers make no products, just designs,
> mostly using software tools.  And they use the IP laws, patents
> especially, to protect the works.  But someone from another planet,
> watching two rooms of people, hardware designers and software
> designers, wouldn't see much behaviorally different - a lot of humans
> typing on keyboards and looking at results on screen.

We all agree that most of these are "software patents".  The
distinguishing criterion is not the form in which the idea is embedded but
the question whether the contribution lies in the realm of logics or that
of matter aka new experiences with natural forces.

> And increasingly the same with biotech re bioinformatics.  

Most patents in those areas are "software patents".
Which is apparently the grounds on which you claimed them to be harmful
(see above).

> The informational is increasingly playing a bigger role in all fields
> of technology, so arguing against the informational to be patented is
> increasingly arguing against all patenting.

"increasingly all" = "an increasingly high percentage".
Using the word "all" in there is misleading.
And finally you do know how to distinguish between "the informational" and
the rest.
Your concern is only, that this rest may be shrinking.
Don't worry, it is not.
If the patent offices limited themselves to that rest, they would still
have a steady growth of patent applications.
Now they have an explosion which they can't handle.
About 10% per year.

> So whatever the pluses and minuses of software patents, increasingly they
> are no different than any other field of technology.  So anything done
> to software patenting should be done to all fields of technology - 
> there is nothing special to distinguish out software patents.  Patents
> in general are a tradeoff, and tradeoffs imply costs and benefits.
 
> So just confess.  You all are against all forms of patenting.

You yourelf just confessed that you are against all forms of
patenting.  Or maybe you meant that you are against the progress of
science and the useful arts.  You can, by the standards of what you said,
choose only one of the two.

Most people on this list are just concerned with software and perhaps "the
informational", but don't have a strong opinion on patents in general.

-phm