Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey
I'm not okay with expiring patents. They'd get the same treatment as copyright, but with stricter standards than allowed today. Just because person A invents a steam engine, that doesn't close the book on it. Person B can invent a steam engine too using a different method. Now we have two patents for the steam engine; and more importantly, competition.
|
Well, at least you're consistent, even if what you propose makes no practical, legal or economic sense.
On what basis does it makes sense to have someone with a monopoly forever on an invention? All that would accomplish is the stifling of innovation and giving a handful of inventors an advantage that is totally disproportionate to the effort they've put in. You can say there'd be competition, but it would only be a shadow of what it is now; sometimes there really is only one or a very small number of patentable way to accomplish a task. Inventions are built on prior inventions, so all infinite patents would do is create an extreme drag on subsequent inventions.
Patents and copyright are creations of statute for the purpose of promoting innovation. No natural intellectual property rights exist without statutes, and granting intellectual property rights is pointless if it doesn't promote innovation. There's nothing to be gained for society for granting a 200 year, 2,000 year or infinite patent, so the idea is ridiculous on its face.
And just to answer another comment, a copyright or patent that you can renew forever is as ridiculous and pointless as a patent that lasts forever and doesn't need to be renewed. Why should Disney or another corporate holder be able to lock up Mickey Mouse forever? Society is better off if the creator is rewarded and encouraged with a temporary monopoly, and then the creation becomes usable by everyone to transform into new and innovative works.