Another Anti-Patent Myth Debunked: The Selden Automobile Patent
There is a myth by the anti-patent crowd that “overly broad” patents inhibit the development of new technologies. One of the classic examples they like to cite is the Selden Patent (US Pat. No. 549,160), which supposedly inhibited the development of the automobile around the turn of the century. A new paper ‘The “Overly-broad” Selden patent, Henry Ford and Development in the Early US Automobile Industry’ By John Howells and Ron D. Katznelson, shows that in fact the automotive industry prospered and inventiveness accelerated despite the Selden patent.
In this case Ford was not the little guy. Selden misinterpreted the scope of his property right - I deal with case like this all the time.
Your tactics are exactly the same as those of Global Warming prophets.
It does not serve the process of discourse, to automatically assume that everyone is either for you or against you. If you do so you will miss the nuances of others perspective and experience.
There is absolutely no evidence for this position
This is not to deny that intellectual-property law has been used to stifle innovation; it often is. But the auto industry doesn't contain very many examples of the practice. The computer industry does, both in hardware and software, and you can see them at techdirt.com on a weekly basis.
PS. didn't make a whole lot on either one...laughing. I would advise don't do it unless you can afford a patent attorney.
When I designed the "expandable ring band", I also obtained design and utility patents to cover my butt...it's probably the only reason I made anything off it.
Otherwise, the patent holder simply stands on their ability to have a government granted monopoly for an arbitrary 20 years and innovation is stifled.
You are simply trying to defend the idea that only the "first" person to think of something gets a monopoly granted by the government. What about other people who thought of it independently? Why should they be prevented from enjoying the fruits of THEIR OWN inventions?
Patents are property rights quit with the monopoly propoganda
One thing that I will say that it DOES do, is encourage inventors to find ways around the patents, which isnt that hard a lot of the time and does result in some better ways to do things.
I was once asked to make something less efficient because supposedly some patent technicality allows the client to use a certain approach as long as it doesn't work too well. I don't know if this is because the patent was poorly written, the client's attorneys were wrong, or if this is just how patents work.
If force is to be applied to patents and copyrights, the period time should be as short as possible for payment for the time of developing the ideas involved and then let the market decide as to the real value of the idea by whether it is saleable for long periods of time and whether others can use the ideas better.
A property right is a sub-category of rights and thus is the freedom of action in a social context. A right does not require law to define it. So IP is not freely acted on but as with property any so called right to it is actually permission by government to use it in some range of action. Suppose I memorized Atlas Shugged, I probably just violated some IP right there by not having permission to Miss Rand's usage rules, I could copy the memory to paper and have a hard copy of Atlas Shugged without having paid a royalty and could give it to my brother without permission. Could I be sued for IP rights violation? As soon as the idea is placed in the form that others can purchase, it can be come personal property of the purchaser. Unless it has a licensing provision for the purchase, as with software and other IP that is not in the public domain, then it is not owned by the purchaser but permitted to be used without ownership. A patent requires the disclosure of the IP behind the invention and thus the freedom of others to know the non-secret. If you want to keep the secret, don't disclose it so that it takes a period time and maybe a large investment to discover it and you have a period of time to recoup your investment in development.
If a person's intellectual property is sacred, then why is it only the FIRST one to seek government protection that gets the monopoly?. It would seem to me that if it is some sort of innate property right, then anyone who comes up with the idea should have identical rights- which doesnt happen with the patent system here.
There is no monolithic “anti-patent crowd”. Any particular individual who opposes patents may or may not be part of a “group” or a “movement”. Any particular individual who opposes patents may or may not lie. Any particular individual who opposes patents may or may not cite the Selden patent as evidence for his or her belief.
I agree with you that “. . . the automotive industry prospered and inventiveness accelerated despite the Selden patent.” Nevertheless, even though the eventual outcome was favorable for Ford, significant time and resources were expended by Ford, ALAM and the courts in asserting, defending against and adjudicating the infringement claim. The automotive industry might have prospered to a greater extent if this claim had never been brought.
Once again you last statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the empirical data. The U.S. had the strong patent system and had the automotive industry. Those countries without patent systems were not even close to the US, so unless you mean it would have been better if this one patent had not existed your statement is nonsense