We could, its in the right of goverments to do that.
> That's like saying the US needs a new constitution. So much has been built on top of and around patent law that making such drastic changes would have ripple effects that would be worse than the original problem.
Thats hard to predict and otherwise its a really bad argument. It remindes me of the argument against lowering inflation. Yes lowering inflation will always creat problems, sometimes even very bad ones but that is no reason to just keep going.
Taking a stand and hit the problem in the face, deal with the consequences and from there on build on a much more solid ground like we did in monetary policy.
> I also have an honest question. Why does everyone really want to reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really. The real reason.
I for one think that it is simple a ineffective system that will just harm the economy and the social live more general (specially in the case of copyrights).
From a purly economicl view it seams clear that all form of IP are harmful. Resources that are not limted do not need a propery rights system. I can not prove this (and I think nobody can) the benefits from copying are much much greater then the benefits from improved insentive.
If you look at sientific discovery and innovation, how it works is many small steps and improving little by little. Revolutionary discoverys do not happen very often.
There are many reason this is specially true in practice. In the real world the patent system is ruled over by a goverment agency that is (like any goverment agency) subject to lobbying and other problems discribed in public choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory).
> don't you think that when they get to such a size where keeping the status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I do. Because I would.
Sure they would. I would too. That is exactly why we have to change insentives. As long as the system is as it is people will have the same insentives (an we all know what these are).
The most importend economic book you will every read will just say "insentive matter" on every page.
Fair enough, good points. But do you kind of see what I'm getting at toward the end? You may have some strong beliefs on patent law but does everyone? Really? Is it just me or does anyone else see this as a bandwagon thing. The next hip cause to support. More people regurgitating something someone told them without reading up on it on their own. That sort of thing. Everything else aside, that's what bothers me most about this issue.
> Fair enough, good points. But do you kind of see what I'm getting at toward the end? You may have some strong beliefs on patent law but does everyone? Really?
I do understand. I think its a valid point but I also think the hype throws a lot more attention on the issue. Attention that is rightly there.
We could, its in the right of goverments to do that.
> That's like saying the US needs a new constitution. So much has been built on top of and around patent law that making such drastic changes would have ripple effects that would be worse than the original problem.
Thats hard to predict and otherwise its a really bad argument. It remindes me of the argument against lowering inflation. Yes lowering inflation will always creat problems, sometimes even very bad ones but that is no reason to just keep going.
Taking a stand and hit the problem in the face, deal with the consequences and from there on build on a much more solid ground like we did in monetary policy.
> I also have an honest question. Why does everyone really want to reform/abolish our patent system? I mean, really. The real reason.
I for one think that it is simple a ineffective system that will just harm the economy and the social live more general (specially in the case of copyrights).
From a purly economicl view it seams clear that all form of IP are harmful. Resources that are not limted do not need a propery rights system. I can not prove this (and I think nobody can) the benefits from copying are much much greater then the benefits from improved insentive.
If you look at sientific discovery and innovation, how it works is many small steps and improving little by little. Revolutionary discoverys do not happen very often.
There are many reason this is specially true in practice. In the real world the patent system is ruled over by a goverment agency that is (like any goverment agency) subject to lobbying and other problems discribed in public choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory).
> don't you think that when they get to such a size where keeping the status quo would help them more than reforming patent law would that they'd drop their ideology and start throwing patent suits around like everybody else? I do. Because I would.
Sure they would. I would too. That is exactly why we have to change insentives. As long as the system is as it is people will have the same insentives (an we all know what these are).
The most importend economic book you will every read will just say "insentive matter" on every page.