the distinction between discovery and invention should be eliminated. This would allow the patent incentive to motivate exploration for previously unknown useful forms of bacteria, plants, animals, materials, molecules, atoms, particles, etc. Previously unknown mathematical formulas and laws of nature should also be patentable. Since patents only give control over the commercial applications of his discovery or invention to the patentee, granting patents on mathematical formulas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena would have no negative side effects on pure science. The economic stimulation of pure science that would be provided by such patents is particularly important today as the traditional economic support of pure science, namely university faculty positions and government grants, are in decline. For the society as a whole, the positive economic effects of such extended intellectual property rights would be quite substantial.
He sent me the article because I wrote about the importance of the intangible economy. However, just because algorithms and other ideas are important does not mean that we should wish to run them through the patent system.
My intuition is that intellectual property should be protected only when the marginal cost to create it is high relative to the ability to profit from it. I think those cases are rare with respect to algorithms. So I am afraid that I disagree with the paper.
The idea of patenting laws of nature seems particularly daft. If Newton had been able to patent gravity, would everybody else be legally constrained from using gravity to hold stuff down in the course of commerce? Everybody is using all of the laws of physics all of the time, even if we don’t completely understand what they are.
There would be prior art for existing uses of gravity. Newton would have the exclusive right to commercial applications arising from the specific properties of gravity he discovered, not from all uses of gravity.
I think two thing are needed for a patent
1) he patent must be representable via a cardboard construction and mechanics
2) The cardboard implementation should then be unique.
Thus, the idea being, all patent have some operation and all cardboards can be cut into random shapes.
Take DNA patent. I have to show a cardboard mechanics that can move amino acids from a cardboard DNA, in some unique sequence. If my machine is unique relative to all other cardboard designs that move cardboard DNA, then I am home free.
I think Edwards makes a large error in this excerpt at least: he assumes there is no feedback from commercial/profitable applications of to “pure science.”
In any case, the race to file patents on academic discoveries is not evidently beneficial. Suppose an inferior institution makes sufficient discoveries in a hot new field to file a key patent, but cannot advance the knowledge further. The incentive is now reduced for a superior institution to build on that knowledge because even if they can patent the improvement, any commercial application would have to license the earlier, more fundamental patent as well as the later, more nuanced patent. This drives revenue to institutions that can patent quickly, effectively making them patent trolls. I don’t see a way for the Patent Office to overcome this. In theory, they could only grant patents to “complete” ideas or discoveries, but how could they know a discovery is complete unless they know the science better than the discoverers, in which case, why not just have the omniscient patent reviewers release their discoveries publicly?
“granting patents on mathematical formulas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena would have no negative side effects on pure science”
I don’t believe this at all.
Software patents – just say ‘no’!
I can take a set of axioms, define a formal grammar and express them, and set the computer to running to produce a theorem/formula every few nano-seconds. I am ‘discovering’ these theorems (Platonic view of mathematics). And I can get my paws on any commercial application deemed to depend on these ‘formula/theorems?’ Hmm… while everyone is trying to mine bitcoins time to spin up my CPU and get my hands on the basic bi, ternary and other enumerable operators.
If the filing charges are too much, I can do a spoke analysis of dependencies and try to capture most valuable pivots (“great theorems”), and try to extort the use of any other formula being used as being a trivial extension.
File under: Massive and dangerous interference with the economy with no attempt to explore negative outcomes and high confidence in a theoretical ideal outcome. In other words, a damn terrible idea.