Talk:Economics and patents

2005-2006

This article looks biased. Please check this point further. --Edcolins 12:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There is in fact significant controversy over whether patents are at all beneficial to the economy. It is also well established that patents, as a form of monopoly, are likely to create economic inefficiencies. From an economics point of view the main question is whether any benefit that patents provide can be shown to outweigh the harm that they cause. The article seems not so much biased as completely oblivious to the entire existence of another point of view Hawthorn 14:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

FTC-Osiris 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is not really biased as it is not giving an actual opinion as to the usefulness of the patent system as a whole. What it is giving is the justification of the patent system as a whole. The fact that there is another point of view is different.

However, I agree that this page should contain both points of view as that was what I was looking for. If the author wishes to not add, the article could be renamed justifications for patents systems or some such. FTC-Osiris 20:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the intro to provide both sides of the story. As per Hawthorwn, the writing is not biased (but is rather strongly worded), the other side simply isn't there. I do not consider myself knoweledgeable enough to write anything meaningful about the argument against patents. Hawthorn, you seem to be familiar with the subject, can you write something? I think sources will be needed if statements such as "likely to create economic inefficiencies", as they are, at least, debatable points. Kcordina ^Talk 10:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The article does not provide a comprehensive view

The article in its current form (May 3, 2006) does not provide a comprehensive view. It appears to be difficult to provide such a view as the topic has turned out to be extremely complex. If time permits and there are no objections I will restructure the article over the next few months. The "patent system" has without doubt an economic impact and as such I believe that the article is intended to discuss the effects of intellectual property on the economy overall with a specific focus on the effects of patents. The effects should be presented in a factual manner i.e. they should not be categorized into "pros and cons". Such a classification may likely be subjective. Also an essay on the economic impact of intellectual property should refrain from discussing unsupported rationales and motivations for or against a patent system. This should only be argued subsequently and with great caution - see E. Machlup's report on the economics of patents from the 1950s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.18.69.83 (talk • contribs)

I think we'll all be happy about any improvement to the article. The subject appears indeed to be rather complex and would definitely require a factual and neutral framework with references to academic papers and reliable studies. --Edcolins 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This WIPO awarded has added Inventor’s view point. After participating in EXPO85 at PLOVDIV I decided to visit USA in 1986 to study the market and USPO. This inventor was asked to Find Out the patent documents put in boxes in a huge building. Copying charges were 25 cents page and only patent attorneys could copy documents. I requested an attorney to get me a page of a document as a souvenir. Science Reference Library in London was different; all European Patents one page summary was available in subject wise folders. One could study the summary of EU patents and if required order full document. In four days I searched all electrical mechanical inventions filed in EU over three years.

Thus patents knowledge was accessible only to a few top professionals who were determined to access it. Time has changed now. All engineers and scientists and most companies in the world has internet connection and could access any patent office in the world and down patent documents.

One must also consider that an inventor files a patent at idea stage; invariably competition around the world could access his patented invention on publication some years before its commercial introduction. Competition is always able to improve their products in quality, performance & price all driven by competition from a patented new technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptionfree (talk • contribs) 08:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Please could you add precise and reliable sources to help readers verify the source of the information you have added. Otherwise, the section you have added can be removed by anyone for lack of verifiability. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the section for now. Please reinsert, if appropriate, but with proper sources. Thank you.--Edcolins (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Break out Patent Valuation

I've been thinking about breaking out "Patent Valuation" and expanding it to include common methods of calcuating patent value in license or sales negotiations. Any objections?--Nowa (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic Benefits

I'm going to be editing this page more frequently in the coming weeks. This is my 1st venture into Wikipedia as an editor, so please give me some constructive feedback. Right now this page could use a huge overhaul. I'll start slow by adding links, sources, references. I'd like to build up the current discussions around patents (pros and cons) and their impact to the economy. Thanks Kehiii (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

POV tag

The section "Economic benefits" seems to present only the opinion that patents do not encourage innovations. This seems to violate our neutrality policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Edcolins (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, section deleted. - RoyBoy 01:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Innovation section citations seem to say that overall patents do not encourage innovation. --Bejnar (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"Since the patent provides the firm with the right to develop the product.."

The passage "Since the patent provides the firm with the right to develop the product" is rather unclear, if not incorrect... A patent is not a "right to develop" a product, but a right to prevent others from commercially exploiting the patented product/process. --Edcolins (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Poor language.

The page suffers from poor textual composition and the style is conversational. Please get some editors to fix this.

"In addition, despite that USPTO tried its best to discriminate the validity and scope of a patent application, sometimes it will still issue a patent that should not be issued. The system corrects the mistake by maintaining the rights to nullify inappropriately issued patents. However, only very small fraction of the disputes ever went to court because of high litigation cost." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.77.177.175 (talk) 08:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Edcolins (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Webster's comment on this article

Dr. Webster has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

There is a lot not to like about this page. the issues it highlights are rather odd and it is not a good representation of the literature.

the opening paragraph is ok.

you probably need someone to overhaul the article rather than get me to edit bit here and there.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Webster has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference 1: Gaetan de Rassenfosse & Alfons Palangkaraya & Elizabeth Webster, 2013. "Do Patents Shield Disclosure or Assure Exclusivity When Transacting Technology?," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2013n05, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.

• Reference 2: Paul H. Jensen & Elizabeth Webster, 2010. "Do Patents Alter the Direction of Scientific Inquiry? Evidence from a Survey of Academic Scientists," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2010n18, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Miceli's comment on this article

Dr. Miceli has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

I am not an expert on patents, especially the legal aspects. That said, this article seemed to be a good review of the theory of patents, as well as the legal and economic debates surrounding the social desirability of the patent system. There is a debate going on regarding whether or not patents are needed to encourage innovation, and this article addressed that debate. The one slight omission is that the article did not adequately address the reason for the need for a patent as a spur of innovative activity. It has to do with the public good nature of information, which allows it to be used freely by anyone once the information is revealed. This so-called "appropriability problem" supposedly discourages innovation because the inventor cannot expect to recoup the initial cost of the invention/innovation unless the idea is legally protected. A patent provides temporary exclusive rights to profit from the invention, thereby overcoming the appropriability problem.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Miceli has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

• Reference : Jef De Mot & Thomas J. Miceli, 2014. "Comparing All-Or-Nothing and Proportionate Damages: A Rent Seeking Approach," Working papers 2014-30, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)