Patents exist to protect inventors and to encourage innovation in our society. The World Intellectual Property Organization justifies this by saying that, “First, the progress and well-being of humanity rest on its capacity to create and invent new works in the areas of technology and culture. Second, the legal protection of new creations encourages the commitment of additional resources for further innovation. Third, the promotion and protection of intellectual property spurs economic growth, creates new jobs and industries, and enhances the quality and enjoyment of life.” While it is good that we are trying to achieve these things, it may not be the case that patents are accomplishing them all.
The first part is just a statement about human progress, establishing its focus in this mantra. The second though, claims that patents are a safety net to those working to establish a new product, which does make sense. Finally, it wraps up by saying that the first two statements go hand-in-hand, and allowing inventors to make this commitment speeds up innovation. I do not believe this last part. Patents can only inhibit the furthering of innovation. In a world with patents, when a single inventor comes up with a new idea and successfully gets it patented, the world’s progress in regards to that idea will only move as fast as he or she moves. As the Ars Technica article by Timothy B. Lee points out. Software companies like Microsoft can just patent everything they do, and sooner or later, no one will be allowed to program anything without their permission. If there were no patents, however, then the entire world is free to further research the idea and hence we can have a much greater rate of innovation in this new area. In regards to innovation, it is that simple. I will wrap up this segment with a quote from Elon Musk, “Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”
With this in mind, it would seem that patents are terrible for society, right? Wrong. Perhaps they do inhibit innovation, but is innovation what we need? Technology is already evolving faster than most people can handle. Perhaps the most beneficial thing for society then, is the protection of an individuals right to make a profit on a product, rather than innovation’s progress. I do believe that patents should be granted. They exist to protect the smaller companies and new inventors, and without them, these groups would almost never have a chance in the market. For an example, consider the television show Silicon Valley. In this show, a new inventor comes up with a brilliant new compression algorithm. Another much larger company, then copies this algorithm and devotes a much larger team to creating a far better product than the original inventor, which pushes him out of the market. In this case, its a TV show, and he comes up with a new, better algorithm which people thought was impossible. In real life though, this probably wouldn’t happen. The person who came up with the algorithm would get no credit and would only have wasted his time coming up with a way for someone else to become even more wealthy. Does this seem right?
It is difficult for me to think of a general rule to protect the rights of software makers. We obviously don’t want large corporation like Microsoft to get all the patents and make it impossible for anyone else to create an application. However, we do want to protect the people like the inventor from Silicon Valley. Perhaps it should be the case that only small companies can get patents, or that only a very specific idea for a very specific type of software can be patented. A better system than the current one is definitely needed though. The fact that patent trolls exist in today’s world shows that the current system is broken. I mean, we are calling them trolls, which suggests to me the answer of the question on what their existence means. But it would be worth it to find a better system.
Elon Musk’s blog post presents a valid reason for Tesla Motors not wanting patents. Elon Musk was also already wealthy before even going into the automotive field though. He does runner a smaller company, but he also isn’t making the resource commitment that a younger entrepreneur would be making. Patents should be kept for the sake of these people. Not for innovation, but for the livelihood of the next great inventors.
Thomas Deranek's CSE 40175 Blog 