| My point was that you do have a little say, but so do millions of others, and a lot of these are conflicting, which makes it difficult to settle on a policy. > It's interesting that the paper you mention has had almost no cites I assume you mean the "Strong Steam" paper? I guess it is not as highly cited since most simply don't question the myth and cite those that propagate the myth instead. However, the paper is well-researched and compelling. I also found it a surprisingly good read, fascinating for the historical perspective it offers of technology and industry at the time. > If they believed it threatened their views, you would think they would respond. I'm not sure about Mokyr, but Boldrin and Levine did respond, and as the second paper shows, they responded by simply changing their falsehoods. I mostly agree with your views on the papers in this field. However, I don't think the question is easily answerable because from most of the papers I've read, comparing the benefits and costs of patents is like comparing apples and oranges. > Patents have simply proved an ineffective way to defend a new business, in my experience. I actually agree. My experience comes from a startup that was ripped off by the big guys and prevailed with patents, but only after it almost died and most of the original team was laid off. As such the patents could not defend the business, and were only good for some after-the-fact remediation. To me, this makes it seem like patent law needs to be strengthened to avoid such cases, but more and more "patent reform" is all about making it easier for the big guys to defend themselves. |