Re: IP law and society (was "protecting inventions")

On 17 Jun 97 at 15:27, H. Federow <hfederow[_at_]u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> ... Judging by my experience as an engineer at
> Boeing, and in talking with friends at companies around Seattle, I
> think the study was right on the money. Established companies do
> R&D for lots of reasons, but whether it is patentable is frequently
> low on the list, or not explicitly considered at all. Harold Federow
> <hfederow[_at_]u.washington.edu>

What is true for "established companies" is also true for most scientists. So we arrive at the following:

1. 75% of technological innovation originates in university research laboratories, the remainder in industrial laboratories. (A recent study reported in Science and the New York Times.)
2. Neither university research scientists nor established companies consider present IP law as an important factor in what they do. (The apparent consensus here.)
3. Ergo, present IP law is definitely not the driving force for technological progress. And as a subsidiary to that, there is certainly no reason not to ask whether some aspects of present IP law are too protective of special commercial interests and against the public good. That is the point of the new Varmus committee, which will be headed by Rebecca Eisenberg, (University of Michigan, IP Law), and include John Barton (Stanford Law).

It's a fine thing to have a narrow specialty, and we all are narrowly specialized because it's a necessity, but to play the game that the world revolves around one's specialty is a silly exercise in egotism.

In general, and speaking as a long-time scientist, I can tell you that most scientists are puzzled by the people in other disciplines who keep explaining things to us. Philosphers explain how we do science; IP attorneys explain why we do science; sociologists explain why we do science where we do it; psychologists explain why we do science and other people don't; and so on. As far as the why (to return to IP law), the answer is simple and immediate. Consider, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem. It's beautiful and it works. Such thoughts are the engine that has been driving scientific progress for five thousand years. Not IP law.

Dan Agin
specpress[_at_]earthlink.net Received on Wed Jun 18 1997 - 15:11:17 GMT