One thing that seems to be missing from the interpretation of the article is whether or not the temporary monopoly granted by patents is necessary in software patents. When answering this question, one should definitely look at the speed of both innovation and obsolescence, combined with strength of competition.
There have been a large number of good papers published all coming to this one conclusion - speed to market in current software markets is the ultimate strategic advantage and source of reward. Most other things can be copied quickly enough, but the landscape is evolving fast enough that innovators can constantly one-up the competition, reaping greatest rewards.
By contrast, in capital-intensive, slower industries, these "guard rails" make a lot of sense - if it takes me years to make a breakthrough on the drug, but means of copying it a re super straightforward because I am required to publish the recipe for all to see, it makes sense to restrict the use of the recipe.
I don't see anyone publishing Google search algorithms for all to see. In fact there is an entire industry that focuses on guessing what it is - SEO.
To me personally, it boils down to this - if we make it super easy for competitors to ride your coat-tails by forcing you to disclose your secrete sauce, then it's fair to try and give you some protection. If we leave you to compete without that interference, than we should not extend the extra protection... (this is just strictly a personal view, grounded more in my ethical views than anything else).
Its a fun exercise to try to imagine what the medical/drug industry would look like sans patents. If it was infeasible for a corporation to spend many years and (m|b)illions of dollars to develop a drug because as soon as you did a competitor would copy it, would we still have drugs? If we did who would make them?
In the future advances in science and computer modeling should make drug development much more rapid than it is today. This could vastly lower the cost to bring drugs to market and put drug development easily within the grasp of a large non-profit organization.
Imagine that instead granting a private company the exclusive right to sell a drug, that instead everyone invested in its development and upon its discovery its formula was shared freely. For most drugs, the synthesis is not a major component of the cost. This would lead to rapid deployment of the drug at very low cost to those who need it.
If there was no copyright law, you can be sure there would still be drugs! And perhaps health insurance companies would be interested in drug development. Fewer sick people and cheaper medicine should lead to greater profits.
Comments
One thing that seems to be missing from the interpretation of the article is whether or not the temporary monopoly granted by patents is necessary in software patents. When answering this question, one should definitely look at the speed of both innovation and obsolescence, combined with strength of competition.
There have been a large number of good papers published all coming to this one conclusion - speed to market in current software markets is the ultimate strategic advantage and source of reward. Most other things can be copied quickly enough, but the landscape is evolving fast enough that innovators can constantly one-up the competition, reaping greatest rewards.
By contrast, in capital-intensive, slower industries, these "guard rails" make a lot of sense - if it takes me years to make a breakthrough on the drug, but means of copying it a re super straightforward because I am required to publish the recipe for all to see, it makes sense to restrict the use of the recipe.
I don't see anyone publishing Google search algorithms for all to see. In fact there is an entire industry that focuses on guessing what it is - SEO.
To me personally, it boils down to this - if we make it super easy for competitors to ride your coat-tails by forcing you to disclose your secrete sauce, then it's fair to try and give you some protection. If we leave you to compete without that interference, than we should not extend the extra protection... (this is just strictly a personal view, grounded more in my ethical views than anything else).
Its a fun exercise to try to imagine what the medical/drug industry would look like sans patents. If it was infeasible for a corporation to spend many years and (m|b)illions of dollars to develop a drug because as soon as you did a competitor would copy it, would we still have drugs? If we did who would make them?
In the future advances in science and computer modeling should make drug development much more rapid than it is today. This could vastly lower the cost to bring drugs to market and put drug development easily within the grasp of a large non-profit organization.
Imagine that instead granting a private company the exclusive right to sell a drug, that instead everyone invested in its development and upon its discovery its formula was shared freely. For most drugs, the synthesis is not a major component of the cost. This would lead to rapid deployment of the drug at very low cost to those who need it.
If there was no copyright law, you can be sure there would still be drugs! And perhaps health insurance companies would be interested in drug development. Fewer sick people and cheaper medicine should lead to greater profits.
SEO isn't about guessing. It is about gaming the known algorithms.