At this point I should also give the background that my little world is mostly the design and upgrading of publicly-owned poop plants.
So, with this background, let me set out why I think patents can be a bad thing.
Why I don't like patents...
1. They stifle innovation
The very purpose of a patent is not to enable someone to produce something, but to prevent anyone else from doing it except you in order to have an advantage. If you patent an idea, no-one else is going to do it, and in our little poop-plant world that stifles acceptance and further development. In other realms where you’re mass-producing consumer goods or medicines I can see this is OK and fair, but in my space it’s really tough to get anyone to innovate, so patenting an idea can kill it pretty fast. I don’t think many equipment vendors get this.2. POTWs can’t specify “one-of-a-kind” technology
Hand-in-hand with stifling innovation, or partly the cause, are the rules that prevent most public utilities from specifying unique technologies. This makes it VERY difficult to do anything new. On the other hand, having just 2 or 3 vendors competing in the same space can be a major boost. I actually spend quite some time comparing technologies and my job is made a whole lot easier if there is more than one of a type.3. No-one likes lawyers
Now don't get me wrong, there are many fine and upstanding lawyers in the world, many of whom have been good friends of mine over the years. And we definitely need lawyers to help us uphold the law. BUT in the litigious culture of the Western World (sorry, I mean where the "rule of law" prevails, yawn), as soon as you threaten to bring in lawyers, we all get a bit weird. Engineers in particular get very uneasy around lawyers and their word games. Heck, we're straightforward thinking, problem solvers. Please don't try to trip us up with what we mean when use certain words or opinions. I've read a couple of patents and the language in them is awful lawyer-speak, seemingly preventing anyone from doing anything anywhere, ever.
Overcoming Patent Paralysis
OK, so I've bad-mouthed one of the main mechanisms for encouraging and protecting inventions since the 16th Century, so do I have any suggestions for a better way forward? I'm not a lawyer (phew, you say), so perhaps I'm not qualified to comment, but here are a few ideas for alternative ways of driving innovation through new ideas and inventions without using patents to stop it...
A. Stay ahead of the game
I mentioned this already, but early in my career I worked for a company that developed some amazing online instrumentation including online respirometry which, to this day, no-one has ever come close to matching. I didn't appreciate it at the time but the ideas produced in that small firm were way ahead of their time and I believe that they only patented one mechanical item out of all the ideas and innovations they produced. The ethos of my boss was to just keep ahead of the game. It turns out he's still 20 years ahead of the game!
B. Go open source
This is a radical idea, but one used by Elon Musk. Don't prevent others from using your ideas, but let them have a go too, then compete to win. Particularly if your ideas are radical and maybe in a whole new domain of their own. Opening up your ideas to others will help spur research and more ideas from which you and the others will all benefit. Isn't this how research is supposed to be done? Rather than hiding your ideas or locking them down so no-one else can develop them further, consider opening the black box and learning from your competitors.
C. Copyright, don't patent
Did I mention I'm no lawyer, so I probably can't comment fully on this, but there are protections under law for published materials and ideas that are covered by copyright. I think there are some weird loopholes in US patent law that allow you to pinch ideas for the 1st year after they're published if you have good lawyers (the experience of my other colleague I mentioned earlier), but still, if you have an idea and publish it, then you have some protections, I think. Doing this, plus considering the "open source" approach is really what research should be about, I think. But only if you want to encourage innovation!
OK, so equipment vendors and those of you who've patented a gazillion inventions, let me know why I'm off base as usual!
I disagree on a couple of your points. The patent process is a two pronged bargain intended to promote innovation, a task it largely succeeds at. The protection aspect promotes innovation by providing a window for profiting from the innovation. In return the patent must explain how the invention works - the teaching aspects of the patent. This also serves to increase innovation by allowing others to implement the invention at a future date. This aspect also serves to provide inspiration for related innovations.
ReplyDeleteThe second point is also a bit off target. It requires a bit more work than just writing in "or equal", but proprietary technology can be specified. The design engineer has to provide the basis for the innovative technology's selection, Appropriate steps, such as pre-bidding, must be used to maintain fair pricing by the supplier. Another technique is a bid form with line item, base bid award, and deductive alternates. I've helped set up many project using patented or otherwise exclusive technology. I know it can be done.
As for the lawyers - no argument.
Thanks for the response, Tom. I'm glad to see a positive experience from using patents. On the second point, I think it depends on the extent of the patent. If it's an enhancement to something (e.g. a control idea) then it takes a little effort to make it work. If it's a major patent on, say, a whole new process, then it's tough.
ReplyDeleteApologies for the circular reference, but this book contains a similar perspective in the section talking about 3D printing... https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8992833-just-as-james-watt-refused-to-license-his-steam-engine
ReplyDeleteThis discussion might be governed by both the experience one has with patenting, either good or bad, and personal values. I think the pro OpenSource idea is merely about personal values. And also in the other there might be a non rational part. The experience aspect might be susceptible to some cognitive biases. I am sure, in some cases people invested in patenting with bad outcomes, but still they defend the idea due to the commitment and consistency principle and deprival superreaction tendency.
ReplyDeleteI think there is only one way to know if patenting is more beneficial for the water or other fields and finally, society, than complete openness: running a randomised control trial and comparing positive societal impact. However, I haven’t read about such an attempt yet (challenging).