If you extend your reasoning, then drugs,
materials, etc. should
not be patentable either because they
are just biology, chemistry, etc. Do you
think new drugs or
alloys should receive patent
protection?
I am not really qualified to respond, but I
think the
distinction that comes to my mind is the difference between
a
tangible and intangible result. An advancement in any
science that results in
merely pushing back the boundaries
of knowledge is intangible. It has no
physical existence in
this world, though the application of new knowledge can
result in something physical.
Although a new cryptography algorithm can
be a very
useful thing, I am suggesting that the foundations of patent
law
doesn't allow for for patents for intangible
advancements of knowledge. One
could debate that there
should be patents for such things, but that would
require a
change in fundamental patent law. We cannot distort existing
law to
make up for perceived shortcomings. This causes
endless problems.
As
far as my feelings about patents in general goes,
there is strong evidence in
my mind that the entire patent
system has become warped by special interests to
the extent
that in many, maybe most cases, it does not serve the common
good.
Elimination of the patent system could increase the
incentives for innovation
in all industries except chemistry
and pharmaceuticals by eliminating startup
litigation costs.
Everything needs to be looked at by economists to
ensure
there is a net benefit to society as a whole. I would
suggest we
dedicate our best and brightest minds to the
task, and completely reform the
patent system entirely based
on broad economic research. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
