[rta5]

This is why I've heard the argument (presumably from Stephan Kinsella, who wrote a book against intellectual property) that the patent system is unconstitutional - it is dubious that patents "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

The economist Fritz Machlup did a study in the 1950s on the economics of the patent system in the US and in his conclusion came to: "If we did not have a patent system, it would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting one."

[CalChris]

That is a dubious argument in its own right. Inventors undertake the considerable effort of inventing and then pay the expense of filing a patent application while disclosing their invention to the public for the reward of a limited monopoly which they would then have to defend in court, again at their expense. Your argument says they are not motivated To promote the progress of science and useful arts but they seem pretty motivated to me.

[derbOac]

I haven't read this literature in awhile but there was a time when I was looking into it and it seemed that there was empirical evidence that if you really want to promote innovation via governmental means the way to do it is through competitions, basically like grant applications or xprize-type things.

The benefits from a patent-type system have to be compared to the alternative, which is where people innovate solely to stay ahead of market competitors and protect trade secrets. In that scenario, one might argue that there's a natural measure of innovation, the ease and speed with which a competitor can copy something or implement a competing product.

I'm not inherently opposed to patents but I do think their implementation today is extremely dysfunctional.