Intellectual Property and Multiple Occurrences of Inventions
June 21st, 2008 • Law
The New Yorker has a great article on the multiple occurrence of inventions – when more than once inventor invent the same thing, for example Bell and Gray both invented the telephone independently and filed for a patent at the same time. Gladwell’s article is a great read – the work of Intellectual Ventures sure sounds fun – and made me think about what impact this has on the law of intellectual property – specifically patents.
The utilitarian justification for the monopoly powers granted to patent holders is that it provides incentives to inventors to invent. By giving inventors a specified time limit within which they solely will be able to profit from their creation, people are more likely to share their invention with the world.
The problem that Gladwell’s article demonstrates is that a lot of inventions aren’t once-off, rare occurrences that need the massive incentives. In fact many people often invent the same thing around the same time, only to be denied any profit from their investment because someone else independently arrived at the same conclusion.
This line of argument doesn’t hold up in regards to other forms of creative endeavor, for example music, and indeed for some forms of research and development that require years of work and lots of money there may be a stronger argument for strong incentives to encourage production. However, in areas such as software patents perhaps this is another reason to think about reforming the status quo.
I’ll end with a favourite quote of mine, from A. Samuel Oddi:
If a developed country has a patent system, there is insufficient evidence available to recommend that the patent system be abolished; conversely, neither does the available evidence suggest the adoption of a patent system if one does not already exist
Popularity: unranked [?]
Related posts:
Recent comments