Markets outperform patents in promoting intellectual discovery, say economists

When it comes to intellectual curiosity and creativity, a market economy in which inventors can buy and sell shares of the key components of their discoveries actually beats out the winner-takes-all world of patent rights as a motivating force, according to a California Institute of Technology (Caltech)-led team of researchers.

In a paper published in this week's issue of the journal Science, an international team of researchers led by Peter Bossaerts, the William D. Hacker Professor of Economics and Management and professor of finance at Caltech, and Swiss Finance Institute Professor at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale Lausane in Switzerland, describes a series of experiments designed to quantify the different ways patent systems and market forces might influence a person's drive to invent, to solve intellectual problems.

Over the last hundred-plus years, the patent system has been the gold standard by which we've protected and tried to incentivize intellectual discovery. But Bossaerts and his team--which includes Debrah Meloso from Bocconi University in Milan, Italy, and Jernej Copic from the University of California, Los Angeles--now say there's a new game in town. Or, rather, an old game--the same free-market forces that drive so much of our economy.

The problem with patents, Bossaerts explains, is that they "give the prize to the winner only. Whoever comes in second or third walks away empty." This means that, for the patent system to work well, "a large number of people need to think they're the absolute best." The economic theory that motivated patent regulation even assumes that all people have an equal chance of being the best, he adds.

In reality, Bossaerts says, that's not how people think. Very few of us think we're the person most likely to come up with a unique solution to a problem before anyone else--and so very few of us are likely to even try to solve a difficult problem. We just assume that someone else will beat us to the patent punch.

On the other hand, Bossaerts notes, studies have shown that more than 50 percent of people think they're better than the median--a statistical impossibility, but one that can be exploited in the marketplace to generate trade.

The researchers were able to provide concrete evidence for these ideas by running a series of experiments in which participants were asked to solve what is known as "the knapsack problem." In the knapsack problem, participants are given a large number of items to pack into a knapsack that cannot possibly hold all of the items; their job is to try to figure out how to maximize the number of "valuable" items they can fit into the knapsack.

"These aren't always the most expensive items," says Bossaerts. "For instance, if you're packing the knapsack to go on a trip, one of the items you would consider most valuable would probably be a toothbrush."

Participants in Bossaerts's knapsack experiment had to solve one set of problems under a regime that worked in much the same way as a traditional patent system, with a $66 reward for whoever figured out the solution first.

The second set of problems was to be solved in a kind of free-trading market regime. Each item that could go into the knapsack was given a different price, and each participant was given five securities per item at the beginning of the experiment. They were then encouraged to buy and sell their securities for the various items, stocking up on shares of items they believed were likely to be included in the problem's solution, and getting rid of shares of items they thought would be left out of the knapsack.

Once the solution was revealed, the securities of the left-behind items became worthless, while the participants who had bought up shares of the included items were allowed to keep their earnings of $1 a share. While nobody won the full $66 as in the patent groups, several people in the market groups were able to benefit financially from coming up with a workable solution to the problem.

That solution didn't even have to be the optimal one, Bossaerts notes. "They didn't have to fully solve the problem to benefit financially," he explains. "They could solve only part of the problem--figure out a few items they believed would be in the solution, or those they thought wouldn't be there--and focus buying and selling those."

This resulted in a large number of different people trying different ideas each time the game was played. Allowing people to benefit even if they only tackle a part of a problem might well lead to more collaboration, and to the faster development of a final solution to the whole problem, Bossaerts adds. "This is important, because the nature of knapsack problems is such that one can only be sure that the optimal solution has been found after one has tried everything," he says.

To 'win' in the patent group, on the other hand, required coming up with the right answer first, which seemed to remove the incentive for the large majority of participants to even attempt solving the problem. "In one example, there was a woman who won a couple of times in a row," Bossaerts recalls. "She had over $120, and everyone else had nothing. They just gave up trying, saying, 'Why bother? She'll just figure it out before us anyway.'"

How would these sorts of market forces work in the "real world"? Bossaerts uses the concept of scientists working to invent a fuel-cell catalyst.

"If a scientist is really convinced that platinum, for instance, is the best catalyst for his fuel cell, the best way to go, he would go out and buy a bunch of platinum futures, knowing that once his invention got into the public domain, the items that go into that invention--in this case, platinum--will go up in price."

Without a patent on the invention, other people would also be free to create platinum-based fuel cells. But there would still be a benefit to being the first: That inventor would be the one able to buy up platinum futures when the prices were at their lowest. "In the market system, if you're first, you still have the advantage," Bossaerts explains. "But you also give the second and third person a chance to profit from their work as well."

Bossaerts's next step is to try to collect data to explain why the market system works. "Our conjecture is that it's due to this idea of overconfidence, that most people think they are better than most other people. But this study wasn't able to test that idea specifically, so we're hoping to do that in future studies."

Bossaerts is well aware that his ideas--even with solid data to back them up--are controversial. People are very protective of their patents, and of the system that guards them, he says. But in reality, says Bossaerts, his team's findings should be seen as reassuring, rather than threatening.

"The take-home message from this study is that one should not be too nervous about protecting intellectual property," he explains. "There are other ways you can benefit from your efforts as well, as long as you have a functioning free market economy in place. Even if you get rid of most patent laws, people will still innovate."

More information: The study described in this paper, "Promoting Intellectual Discovery: Patents vs. Markets," journal Science.

Source: California Institute of Technology (news : web)


Explore further

Biotechnology needs 21st century patent system: Expert

Citation: Markets outperform patents in promoting intellectual discovery, say economists (2009, March 5) retrieved 24 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2009-03-outperform-patents-intellectual-discovery-economists.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 06, 2009

The study below is HORRIBLE and the people doing it have no idea what the hell they are talking about%u2026 but they are going to make policy!!!

The original unfisked article can be found here:
http://www.physor...207.html

all these seem to desire that through some imposed program that they can find some holy grail. they refuse to look at what works and instead are trying to find a solution that will work within the framework of the banal and average and will make collectivism highly productive.

You can%u2019t invent collectively. The Sistine chapel could never be done by committee, and even worse, by a committee of the average.

Here I go into it%u2026

Markets outperform patents in promoting intellectual discovery, say economists
March 5th, 2009 in Other Sciences / Economics
When it comes to intellectual curiosity and creativity, a market economy in which inventors can buy and sell shares of the key components of their discoveries actually beats out the winner-takes-all world of patent rights as a motivating force, according to a California Institute of Technology (Caltech)-led team of researchers.
First of all, their %u201Cexperiment%u201D has no bearing on reality! Its completely devoid of proving the point they are trying to prove, and their %u201Cmarket%u201D is a collective, not a %u201Cmarket%u201D.
In a paper published in this week's issue of the journal Science, an international team of researchers led by Peter Bossaerts, the William D. Hacker Professor of Economics and Management and professor of finance at Caltech, and Swiss Finance Institute Professor at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale Lausane in Switzerland, describes a series of experiments designed to quantify the different ways patent systems and market forces might influence a person's drive to invent, to solve intellectual problems.
The first question I would ask would be if the design is valid for showing what they are trying to show. I will point out that the people doing this do not invent, nor, as you will shortly see, does anyone in their test actually invent. They solve a problem, or act like they do, but solving a problem is not inventing. Period. If it was, you could work a process to get to inventing on demand. leaps of intuition, epiphany, and other such descriptions do not relate to solving a problem. solving a problem is a facet and not the key one they are trying to focus on, and have no idea what they are talking about. And its obvious they don%u2019t, I don%u2019t care what degrees or awards or what not.
Over the last hundred-plus years, the patent system has been the gold standard by which we've protected and tried to incentivize intellectual discovery.
The purpose of the patent office is to turn the ephemeral into property that can be bought or sold. They do not even understand the core reason for a %u2018patent%u2019 office! Its not about incentivization, or protection. While it DOES afford that, the establishment of an ephemeral (and idea), into object reality (a patent) once realized then can allow the invoking of incentives, protection, ownership.
The patent office treats the realm at the edge of knowledge like an open territory of an undiscovered land in which those who enter the area are the ones who get to establish the first footing and get to sell their parcels off as they wish. The territory is open to all who would expend the time to read, study, and think. While it may seem that there are more requirements to invention, the rest are trappings and proofs.
The reason our patent office is such a %u201Cgold standard%u201D is precisely that it seeks to be just in granting ownership of ideas on a frontier in which no one can direct anyone to seek an answer, and to which the edge is literally infinite in width and depth.
If one did not reward the seeker, there would be no reason for the seeker to spend their time and effort in the MENTAL investment, as there are plenty of more pleasurable and varied entertainments than busting ones nut to find an answer literally at the edge of reason.
Once obtained though, it is not the patent that entices people to think of solutions to problems. It%u2019s the patent office that entices them to take a chance on finding out if their solutions stand up better than all the others. In other words the power of the patent office is to get aunt birtha to write up her idea for her kitchen utensil that she had her brother make for her and share that with the world. Its not to enduce harriet to give up sudoku and explore the edges of reason.
Inventing is not problem solving since there is no problem to solve. You can%u2019t state %u201Ctoday I am going to invent blah blah%u201D. But you can say with a problem %u201Ctoday I am going to work on a faster method to the cube root%u201D. The major difference is that the goal is known, the problem is defined, and one can work towards a solution.
In inventing, no one has defined the goal, the problems are infinite and many of them not real, the problems are very contextual and abstract when they exist buried in the ether of thoughts.
But Bossaerts and his team--which includes Debrah Meloso from Bocconi University in Milan, Italy, and Jernej Copic from the University of California, Los Angeles--now say there's a new game in town. Or, rather, an old game--the same free-market forces that drive so much of our economy.
Again, a complete misunderstanding as to what the free market means to the inventor, and what drives the inventor. The way they just stated it, it%u2019s the tilled earth that attracts the corn for planting. The free market to an inventor is just a market for a piece of sellable property. An inventor is a person who wants to leverage hard work in thinking to create a piece of property with no material inputs but complete personal input.
They know that the next big solution and discovery of a new market niche comes first in a form of sweat equity that is EXTREEMLY risky. Too risky to actually fund because you can line up 1,000 of the best thinkers and the janitor cleaning the room will have the idea! (why? Because he has listened to the others argue while cleaning the room and didn%u2019t have a preferred view that prevented him from looking where he shouldn%u2019t, so he looked where he shouldn%u2019t and said, whoa, its there)
The market is but only a compass as to what to work on. It is not the reason to work on things; it%u2019s the reason to NOT work on things. Inventing is searching an infinite space to find what no one else can find by some means. The space is too large to just sit around solving things. in fact, if one were to go about it that way, one could literally waste thousands of lifetimes solving problems of no use to anyone. And a HUGE proportion of inventors do just that (not to mention invent what cant be made, and invent what has already been made).
The problem with patents, Bossaerts explains, is that they "give the prize to the winner only. Whoever comes in second or third walks away empty."
Bossaerts always comes in second. cant you tell? He wants his contribution to actually be a part of things. but the truth is that the spark of the invention can only be had by one person, and the support or not can equally make or break the idea. Usually the inventor knows and is greatful enough to share, even if the person didn%u2019t even know what they did (like inspire the invention or the looking into the problem domain).
Didn%u2019t they examine their own logic? The market does not say that when you sell your car you have to give some of your money to the gas station attendant, does it? even if the gas station attendant gave you some gas for free, it didn%u2019t entitle them to a part of the money from the sale of the car.
But they are basically saying that the only reason people invent is because they want money. That glory and acceptance and adulation are not part of it. Why should the person who did all the work share with number two and three? This inane point assumes that number two and three have the same idea and got to the office late. But the US is a first to idea patent system, not a first to the patent office and file system (as these other countries the investigators belong to, and that do not invent like the US. maybe they should fix their OWN countries before they come and ruin ours while pretending to fix it).
This means that, for the patent system to work well, "a large number of people need to think they're the absolute best." The economic theory that motivated patent regulation even assumes that all people have an equal chance of being the best, he adds.
The number of inventions is not a function of the number of people. The process does not work that way. they are talking totally ignorant of even the history of inventing and so forth. complete ignorance dressed up.
All it needs is a large number of people who are left to learn and live in the real world so that they are functional and not slothful, and who then make tools for themselves, or conceive of them. we are a species that likes puzzles. Millions do puzzles every day. he already has millions of people willing to do puzzles, and they don%u2019t have to think that they are the best.
Inventing is more akin to BINGO than it is akin to how they are viewing it. you get an idea, you yell bingo. You check it out if others had it. yes they did, you go wow, isn%u2019t it funny how great minds think a like and tell the joke at the next party, you find out no one has, and others need the solution. THEN the idea of the market rewards and things entices you to then take a chance once you establish that this thing is your property to do with as you please (even if its sign all rights away!!!).
The pompous ass doesn%u2019t know that it%u2019s not about being the best. Read the history of all the top inventions and that is not a thought that would enter your mind!!! Maybe if your one or two inventors you study are the crackpots, like Howard Hughes, and Tesla. But if you read about the inventor of white out. and other little things you would find out that they didn%u2019t set out to do this. They just had an idea and there was a place for them to make the idea into a piece of property and so be able to sell it in the market, or use it.
They are ignorant of a healthy market, they are ignorant as to inventings source, and ignorant of the core reason for a patent office, yet they are going to make policy (having never invented and brought to market a damn thing!)
In reality, Bossaerts says, that's not how people think. Very few of us think we're the person most likely to come up with a unique solution to a problem before anyone else--and so very few of us are likely to even try to solve a difficult problem. We just assume that someone else will beat us to the patent punch.
Ok, we can tell they are socialist bent. They don%u2019t think that the prolific inventor (their target in which they are willing to ruin the whole system in some inane pretend fantasy that they can improve it for the prolific one and get more of them), is anything but a average person motivated by greed and only timing makes number two and three.
How he describes is not how people think either. the average person who invents something is generally a one hit wonder. So they don%u2019t get up in the day and say %u201Chey, I am going to invent something%u201D. The only place that happens is on tv because tv writers don%u2019t know how to write about them either, and their left agenda is not to induce grand productivity in the individual masses and make capitalism stronger. Eh? (so I would be suspect of these peoples motives of fixing the gold standard!)
The truth is that the SAME thing that they use to justify something, that more than 50% believe they are above the mean, and most believe they are the only ones with an idea. In fact its this feeling that makes number two and number three feel they have been cheated.
So much for a good grasp of a theory of mind, motivation, and thought.
On the other hand, Bossaerts notes, studies have shown that more than 50 percent of people think they're better than the median--a statistical impossibility, but one that can be exploited in the marketplace to generate trade.
Trade in what? One cant trade what is not real, and one cant own a part of something that doesn%u2019t exist. And so before one can use trade in a valid way, one has to establish property, and so then one can establish value and share. They are trying to assume the value of the invention before its invented, and they are not thinking about how the costs will be shared!! In other words, they have no idea of the dynamic. They even assume that an invention will be found rather than 20 years reaching a dead end!
The researchers were able to provide concrete evidence for these ideas by running a series of experiments in which participants were asked to solve what is known as "the knapsack problem." In the knapsack problem, participants are given a large number of items to pack into a knapsack that cannot possibly hold all of the items; their job is to try to figure out how to maximize the number of "valuable" items they can fit into the knapsack.
Here is where it starts to get scary%u2026 (do they realize that they are blithely talking about experimenting with the lives and well being of billions of living people now and in the future?)
First problem I have is concrete evidence for these ideas by running a series of proxy experiments that they assume represent the model correctly and so the results are concrete. Before I wrote this, I read ahead. They suck.
Solving a problem is not inventing. So whatever they think this proves, its not inventing.
Before I get into it, read on.
"These aren't always the most expensive items," says Bossaerts. "For instance, if you're packing the knapsack to go on a trip, one of the items you would consider most valuable would probably be a toothbrush."
A problem that the people who try to do something in this area seem to always make is that the values of one person are the obvious values of everyone else. And so they would entertain a collective. But guess what? a collective that is all the same cant invent, they cant have an idea everone else doesn%u2019t have. So the homogenization they have been doing for equality is antithesis to invention more than how the process is induced in the masses.
As we go along, see if their idea would really transpose to a market. They wouldn%u2019t. at least not for this problem.
Participants in Bossaerts's knapsack experiment had to solve one set of problems under a regime that worked in much the same way as a traditional patent system, with a $66 reward for whoever figured out the solution first.
This is such an encapsulated view, it completely unreal in its assumptions. The majority of which seem to always assume huge swaths are always one way or are homogeneous. (these guys have bad hive mentality no wonder they couldn%u2019t invent valid experiments).
The second set of problems was to be solved in a kind of free-trading market regime. Each item that could go into the knapsack was given a different price, and each participant was given five securities per item at the beginning of the experiment. They were then encouraged to buy and sell their securities for the various items, stocking up on shares of items they believed were likely to be included in the problem's solution, and getting rid of shares of items they thought would be left out of the knapsack.
Don%u2019t you love when %u201Cconcrete proof%u201D and %u201Ckind of%u201D are in the same explanation?
This assumes that there is an answer!!! That the goal of the invention process always has an end answer. The problem is unreal in that inventing is not goal oriented this way, this is why none of these turkeys have ever increased the number of them.
The items in the knapsack have already been established as real. They can be selected, they know that at some point some will and some won%u2019t have value. The test requires no actual inventive ability, they do not know how the parts will be used in a solution, and they know that there is a solution. What the researchers don%u2019t get is that all this is, is a lottery game dressed up to look like research.
They could have done the experiment with kindergarten kids, they could dress the results up the same.
Once the solution was revealed, the securities of the left-behind items became worthless, while the participants who had bought up shares of the included items were allowed to keep their earnings of $1 a share. While nobody won the full $66 as in the patent groups, several people in the market groups were able to benefit financially from coming up with a workable solution to the problem.
It would have come out the same if it was just a random guessing game. No one would get the full amount, some would get more, some would get none. And there was always someone that was going to benefit from meaningless %u201Cresearch%u201D to invent things that never are made.
They just invented the endless research wheel that doesn%u2019t produce, but always will next week. The test doesn%u2019t show a damn thing as to market forces and inventing. And it doesn%u2019t even prove their hidden thesis that distributing a win to losers makes everyone happier and more productive. You know what? you take away my win, THAT will stop me from inventing and make me go watch some crap show instead.
That solution didn't even have to be the optimal one, Bossaerts notes. "They didn't have to fully solve the problem to benefit financially," he explains. "They could solve only part of the problem--figure out a few items they believed would be in the solution, or those they thought wouldn't be there--and focus buying and selling those."
The patent office does not grant patents on partial solutions. This is a false view of many patents making up a whole. They j ust conveniently shifted the whole view to make their point and they are either/or. Either the parts are all part of one invention, and so they share in the successful one, or the parts are separate inventions that get a reward in and of themselves. that still doesn%u2019t remove that solving a stated problem with known resources and knowing that there is a resolution in any way resembles inventing.
Even worse, it will not explain the motivation of an inventor like lemelson who has more than 600 items. If he had to do all of them with other people or share them, he would have given up. So this is really a deflating of productivity and the creation of decline mascquerading as %u2018science%u2019. Some people invent on the toilet, how would bossaerts make that market incentive?
This resulted in a large number of different people trying different ideas each time the game was played. Allowing people to benefit even if they only tackle a part of a problem might well lead to more collaboration, and to the faster development of a final solution to the whole problem,
Thank you for proving my point that all it was was a random lottery in which people didn%u2019t want to let their last combination ride!! And once again, we find that their %u201Cconcrete%u201D has lots of %u201Cmights%u201D and stuff in it. might lead to more collaboration. Ah, how did more collaboration lead to more inventing? Isnt that an assumption? Isn%u2019t design by committee rotten? Everyone finds it so%u2026 so your not going to get collaboration this way%u2026 when people collaborate together on an invention, it%u2019s because of what they could make, not because of what money they could make. Invention FIRST money second, and inventors (prolific ones) are not motivated by greed. If they were they would invent cheap garbage more than complicated things for small marginal markets too.
Its wrong to assume that collaboration is the magic ingredient that makes inventing work. it doesn%u2019t. history will bear that out. collaboration is what comes AFTER invention. You cant collaborate on something that doesn%u2019t exist. And if everyone is collaborating on a solution, then they are designing, not inventing.
Bossaerts adds. "This is important, because the nature of knapsack problems is such that one can only be sure that the optimal solution has been found after one has tried everything," he says.
So its important to let us know that they could not actually get to a best solution through any thought. So in effect it was just a lottery and it does not in any way show what they say it shows. You get a bunch of people in a room and give them the chance to win different amounts by putting the %u2018right%u2019 unkown item in their basket and then revealing the score later. Is just a lottery for random selection.
To 'win' in the patent group, on the other hand, required coming up with the right answer first, which seemed to remove the incentive for the large majority of participants to even attempt solving the problem.
Well yeah%u2026 a random selection that earns them money would have more players. Basically he is saying%u2026 if everyone makes out whether there is a solution or not, everyone likes to play because everyone can get a payout! Evne for no success.
But if the task is really hard, and it takes a lot of effort, and a lot of that effort would to unrewarded, like real inventing, its hard to motivate people. Next study, people like sugar from a spoon more than a kick in the nuts.
"In one example, there was a woman who won a couple of times in a row," Bossaerts recalls. "She had over $120, and everyone else had nothing. They just gave up trying, saying, 'Why bother? She'll just figure it out before us anyway.'"
His assumption is that inventing new things is so easy the problem is that there are a few people hogging the solutions. The problem is the test. Any contrived test of problem solving is going to have people who have a natural proficiency. I know we are not equal by a long shot, these people don%u2019t. so the woman who had a talent for those inventions won more than people who had no talent for those inventions.
The bigger problem that they are leading themselves into is how do you choose who to let invent now you have 500 people all willing to play a game in which they win regardless of success?
They think that more people will lead to more inventions. Which on one level is true, but on another level the principal doesn%u2019t work this way. in other words in a larger population your going to have more people with certain aptitudes and interests, and so in a large population left to their own with a golden standard patent office, will produce lots of inventions, but they will not be in the offices of the large state or company entities.
In this way, inventing is like fission. You know it has a half life, but you cant tell where the events are going to happen.
Well, putting 500 smart people in a room, will not get more inventions since you refuse to acknowledge talent, aptitude, and other qualities in which such study would be more beneficial!
Because if you did that, you could leave the patent laws alone, and put the right people together. And like others who invent together they collaborate and share the remuneration (since patent law does not say only one gets the prize%u2026 so that part of their formulation is wrong too)
How would these sorts of market forces work in the "real world"? Bossaerts uses the concept of scientists working to invent a fuel-cell catalyst.
"If a scientist is really convinced that platinum, for instance, is the best catalyst for his fuel cell, the best way to go, he would go out and buy a bunch of platinum futures, knowing that once his invention got into the public domain, the items that go into that invention--in this case, platinum--will go up in price."
The process of scientific discovery and invention are not the same thing. I work with researchers, I invent, they are stymied. They give up and not even try to solve the problem, I plink down answers for them. why is this so? (and yes I have several %u2018inventions%u2019 in the process of patenting by the research hospitals offices).
The main guy I have worked with, just wants to sit and discover FACTS. He has very little desire to take those facts and do things with them. I have stepped in at the research hospital, because I like to invent, and I am trying to teach them to follow through and do something with the stuff they find out.
The assumption above about buying platinum, is stupid. It shows an ignorance that the smarter scientist doesn%u2019t have. The prices of platinum depend more on just the consumptive power of a new product that is entering the market. In other words, if someone invented such a product, it would never be viable to make for market!!! What product could survive a constant massive increase in its main ingredient every year? The example is inane%u2026 even more so since the scientist knows that many good ideas that would make great products never actually get made for all kinds of reasons not having anything to do with merit, and such (lack of capital is a bigger problem, and our leader is draining more, so your not going to get more invention but less!)
Without a patent on the invention, other people would also be free to create platinum-based fuel cells. But there would still be a benefit to being the first: That inventor would be the one able to buy up platinum futures when the prices were at their lowest. "In the market system, if you're first, you still have the advantage," Bossaerts explains. "But you also give the second and third person a chance to profit from their work as well."
This is inane since there is no way to know the actual impact of a product at conception, and the actual product coming out would be years from that time. So there would be no way to be the first to corner the market, nor would anything that could do that much influence make it fast into the market. Also such increase would result in mining more platinum and a lowering of the price by the time mass production kicks up.
His special case tips the market in platinum%u2026 may I ask the advantage that would have been present in the market for say, production of the wacky wall crawler? (and item made by one of the worlds most prolific living inventors). Or perhaps the toothpick? After all, upon the invention of the toothpick (which is patented), the inventor was advised to buy up stock in logging operations to get money from the idea. Or even better, the inventor of the safety pin, knew that this would influence world production in steel, so would be rewarded for their work. (by the way, lack of capital again, would mean the inventor couldn%u2019t invest in the market. And most inventors lack capital, not ability, or ideas)
Bossaerts's next step is to try to collect data to explain why the market system works. "Our conjecture is that it's due to this idea of overconfidence, that most people think they are better than most other people. But this study wasn't able to test that idea specifically, so we're hoping to do that in future studies."
He hasn%u2019t shown the market system %u2018works%u2019.
Bossaerts is well aware that his ideas--even with solid data to back them up--are controversial. People are very protective of their patents, and of the system that guards them, he says. But in reality, says Bossaerts, his team's findings should be seen as reassuring, rather than threatening.
They are not controversial, they are inane to the problem. and we are back to the solid data theme again%u2026 the play goes like this%u2026 I have concrete evidence%u2026 might, seems, could be, sometimes%u2026 and with solid data%u2026 the controversy is that this is not good work and rather than do better work, study, and actually INVENT tests that work%u2026 he will probably fish to find tests that don%u2019t test but to him seem to, and then play this same concrete, soft, hard thing%u2026
"The take-home message from this study is that one should not be too nervous about protecting intellectual property," he explains. "There are other ways you can benefit from your efforts as well, as long as you have a functioning free market economy in place. Even if you get rid of most patent laws, people will still innovate."
Well, the truth is that you shoulnt be too nervous%u2026 but not from his study, the non facts, there is no take home message. For the VAST majority of the tick tock improvements that is invention, there are no other rewards than the patent and the selling or executing its value in the market.
The last statement is completely untrue%u2026 one only has to see how not having patent laws has hampered china. remember china didn%u2019t invent most of all that it makes, it just makes it%u2026 and so lack of patent laws harmed it%u2026 also, prior to that, lack of patent laws didn%u2019t have them making their products.
If I have an idea, and I cant protect it there is no reason to persue it. if I have to share my work with those that don%u2019t deserve it, then I wont do it. the system already allows sharing of the work with those that do deserve it.
What if you%u2019re the only person with the solution, does the first person who reads it get to be number two saying they had the same idea? If there is no patent office then the winners are the large companies who have reasouces in place to leverage ideas.
But this wont happen, because even today, they don%u2019t want to pay for the ideas that they need. They cheat the patent laws and cheat the innovators. This is the BIGGEST impediment to inventing.
And researchers biggest impediment to invention to the market, is that they don%u2019t need to. They can tinker their own little world like the guys I work with and they can be happy finding out new things writing papers for grants and never ever make a product. In fact the research hospital created an office because many of the researchers will not patent their ideas and make products because it takes them away from their research!!!!
I work with them, and even ideas worth literally millions do not motivate them. so the stuff here would never work. they are birds in a guilded cage and happy with their birdseed. They are also so left that they are happy unmotivated in their little collectives, why invent and then bring to market?
I am doing that because I like to. Been doing this for more than 20 years and its been a long journey with nothing but failure. And that%u2019s with sucha great patent system and lots of potential.
What was my biggest problem, and still is till we sign the licensing agreements%u2026 that there was no way to get capital, that others in the market cant be motivated, and that in many cases the people I had to deal with had no ability to evaluate or even understand the solutions (so what would have been a short process with my own capital, has drawn out for three years).
You don%u2019t want more people inventing stuff that isn%u2019t unique so you have to somehow force the solvers to share with the almost solvers. That isn%u2019t going to get more inventions, since you cant tell which atoms are going to fission.
I can think of literally hundreds of inventions that would never be if this person had a chance to actually try to improve the productivity of the gold standard.
Take white out, invented by Bette Nesmith Graham, a Dallas secretary and a single mother. Pray tell how she was supposed to benefit from this mans collective open patent system that would have left a secretary and single mother with nothing.

How much did the invention of white out effect the market for the chemicals that are used to make it? and how was a single mother with no money to buy those secondary rewards and turn that into something? but with a great idea, she was able to get others to help, she got a patent, and by doing so her ephemeral idea was turned into something that she could sell. She then sold it, and got her reward. And her son, became one of the monkees.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more