Grinding innovation to a halt with Patents?

[SuperHiro]

My god, did you guys just out-lorax lorax?

[pr0ner]

I think the point I was trying to get across was that if innovation was only 100%, completely new and unique, never ever been done before type things, it would slow down because products out there now could never be improved by anyone other than the original inventor. Tons of innovation comes from non-obvious improvements of already existing patents. If this wasn't allowed, the patent system would slow to a crawl, as would innovation.

Does that make any sense? I can go into more detail if I need to.

And no, I don't do copyrights.

Mike

[WPD]

If I could give out awards I would give one to lorax for using the so often.

But I can't, sorry lorax.

[lorax]

Tons of innovation comes from non-obvious improvements of already existing patents. If this wasn't allowed, the patent system would slow to a crawl, as would innovation.

Here is an article on the slowing of innovation: Entering a dark age of innovation.

Since "nonobvious improvement" is subjective, how exactly does this requirement speed up innovation?

Exactly.

[Peacedog]

That article's methodology is questionable. If not ridiculous.

[The Preacher]

That article's methodology is questionable. If not ridiculous.

Damn, you stomped on the guy in 11 minutes. You're a hardass now that you dropped that crappy mod gig.

[Peacedog]

It was a prefectly cromulent post, Usul.

[Smoove_B]

Despite evidence that may suggest otherwise, I am not the Lorax.

[The Preacher]

It was a prefectly cromulent post, Usul.

This new-found layman status has embiggened you.

[pr0ner]

Tons of innovation comes from non-obvious improvements of already existing patents. If this wasn't allowed, the patent system would slow to a crawl, as would innovation.

Here is an article on the slowing of innovation: Entering a dark age of innovation.

Since "nonobvious improvement" is subjective, how exactly does this requirement speed up innovation?

Exactly.

Peacedog said all I need to say. Besides, do you work at the patent office? Is that answer no? Then you have NO IDEA what's going on.

Mike

[lorax]

Tons of innovation comes from non-obvious improvements of already existing patents. If this wasn't allowed, the patent system would slow to a crawl, as would innovation.

Since "nonobvious improvement" is subjective, how exactly does this requirement speed up innovation?

Besides, do you work at the patent office? Is that answer no? Then you have NO IDEA what's going on.

Unfortunately, technojargon and an "appeal to authority" are no substitute for a pithy and convincing response.

[Eightball]

Lorax, he works with patents every day, examining them. Here's another view. I've been studying patent law the past year, rather heavily. I'm involved in it from the baseline theory to the high level policy aspects currently.

Your , and pithy answers notwithstanding, where is your basis of knowledge for your statement that patents stifle innovention?

Instead of throwing enough statistics at you to make your eyes bleed, I'll appeal to whatever pithy common sense is in your head.

Here are the countries with the strongest patent laws in the world: United States, England (and other EU countries like Germany, France & Italy), and Japan.

Here are the countries with the weakest patent laws/most frequent IP abusers: India, China.

Which set do you think innovates more? Sure, there's more money/richer economy in the first set invested in R&D, but then again...maybe there's more money invested because there are stronger patent laws to protect that R&D investment.

Or maybe, patent laws stifle innovation because Lorax deems it so?

[The Preacher]