Is patent protection good or bad?

[stephan]

There probably have been some good things that were invented from patent protection, but we would probably be driving 100 mpg cars by know if it didn't exist. In general, do all the benefits outweight the losses?

I used to be a big fan of patent protection, but I don't think I am anymore because it seems like a vice for big business.

[Borodog]

Patents are monopolies. Monopolies are in every case bad. End of story.

[nietzreznor]

patents suck

[HubertCumberdale]

[ QUOTE ]
Patents are monopolies. Monopolies are in every case bad. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would get rid of patents? Would you get rid of copyrights, trademarks, etc? All intellectual property?

That would stifle innovation on a grand scale.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patents are monopolies. Monopolies are in every case bad. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would get rid of patents? Would you get rid of copyrights, trademarks, etc? All intellectual property?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intellectual property cannot be logically defended. However, that does not imply that at least copyrights would not exist in a free market. I have a strong suspicion that they would, and would hence be a never ending source of conflict (despite the fact that property rights form to minimize and resolve conflicts).

[ QUOTE ]
That would stifle innovation on a grand scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it wouldn't. I find that assumption to be empirically ridiculous, given the vast quanitity of intellectual products that are created year in and year out without any hope of compensation whatsoever.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Patents are monopolies. Monopolies are in every case bad. End of story.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would get rid of patents? Would you get rid of copyrights, trademarks, etc? All intellectual property?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pardon? He says monopolies are bad.

[4 High]

patents are teh suck.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
but we would probably be driving 100 mpg cars by know if it didn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

ridiculous.


[ QUOTE ]
In general, do all the benefits outweight the losses?


[/ QUOTE ]

Any discussion of this issue needs to start with a separation fo the issue of IP protection in general and the US patent system as currently implemented.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That would stifle innovation on a grand scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it wouldn't. I find that assumption to be empirically ridiculous, given the vast quanitity of intellectual products that are created year in and year out without any hope of compensation whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Such as?

Also, "empircally ridiculous"? Don't you think that's an overstatement given the vast quanitity of intellectual products that are created year in and year out largely because of the prospect of compensation?

[hmkpoker]

Ponder this:

The most recent example of why this effort is futile is file sharing. No one wants to buy music or movies anymore. The advent of Napster created a much better way for people to acquire music. When it was shut down, new servers emerged, and these didn't just allow mp3 sharing; now movies and programs were being transmitted too.

Whether this is morally wrong or illegal does not matter. Nothing can feasibly stop it. It is like a drug epidemic; illegalization cannot get rid of it, it only forces a black market that creates even more problems. This marks a huge change in the entertainment industry; newer, cheaper and better products must surface to compete in this new market.

This naturally created the existence of satellite radio and Netflix, new services that charge a small fee for a much better service (file sharing has some annoying problems, like when you download the star wars and it turns out to be porn...but even that's not a total waste) We now get more products better, cheaper and faster, and it is all thanks to people trampling over whatever nonsense Lars Ulrich had to say about capitalism.