Patents Don't Pay 210
tarball_tinkerbell sends us to the NY Times for word on a book due out next year that claims that beginning in the late 1990s, on average patents cost companies more than they earned them. A big exception was pharmaceuticals, which accounted for 2/3 of the revenues attributable to patents. The authors of the book Do Patents Work? (synopsis and sample chapters), James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer of the Boston University School of Law, have crunched the numbers and say that, especially in the IT industry, patents no longer make economic sense. Their views are less radical than those of a pair of Washington University at St. Louis economists who argue that the patent system should be abolished outright.
This is also the Pirate Party's stance (Score:5, Informative)
Patents do pay (Score:5, Informative)
For others patents did better:
Mr. Bessen said that besides girding the pharmaceutical industry, the system did seem to work reasonably well for small companies and individual inventors.
I know slashdot editors hate IP as much as they hate nuance, but the headline does not refect this guy's research.
Re:If you can't tell the boundries, it ain't prope (Score:5, Informative)
Its called "copyright".
Wright brothers are another good example (Score:5, Informative)
A real lesson in the relative merits of innovation to stay at the front of the pack instead of dying in court battles.
A tiny nitpick (Score:1, Informative)
People in the electronics industry are familiar with the case of Edwin Howard Armstrong who invented many of the fundamental parts of modern radio. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Armstrong [wikipedia.org] RCA stole his ideas and basically lawyered him to death. RCA, on the other hand, had patents and could afford to enforce them with great vigour.
Armstrong's would be one case that Lancaster would use as an example of why patents don't work for the individual inventor. He never, afaict, said patents didn't work for the big guys.
Bad math (Score:2, Informative)
They didn't count the value of the leverage of having a large portfolio when used against another company that has a large portfolio.
If a large company unilaterally stopped accumulating patents, pretty soon it would have to start paying everyone, not just the patent-holding companies, royalties on patents it needs to license. As it is, you can just horse-trade your patents and call it even.
Without a systemic fix, large software companies like MS and IBM won't totally abandon patents any time soon.
Re:Wright brothers are another good example (Score:3, Informative)
The important patent the Wright brothers got didn't have anything to do with aerodynamic designs at all. They patented an engine design that was efficient enough, in terms of power/weight, to be viable for powered flight.
Re:Contributing factor (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/
Re:This is also the Pirate Party's stance (Score:2, Informative)
Further, that assumes that a system was put in place specifically as written - why limit to 20? Why not come up with a list of needed solutions and bounties to cover more than twenty?