tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7878776950255379981..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Can Wenzhou and cigarette lighters tell us something about why there are IP rights?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55823341496996658552018-02-16T13:59:16.164+00:002018-02-16T13:59:16.164+00:00Something I learned on a course at the Civil Servi...<br />Something I learned on a course at the Civil Service college many years ago is that you can usually find evidence to support any point of view if you look hard enough. A 20th Century example of the impact on industry of both the existence and the absence of patent protection can be found in the electric lamp industry. <br /><br />In the UK, Edison's master patent was upheld (probably due to a concession by Swan that his earlier patent was not for a filament lamp, leading to the creation of the Edison and Swan joint company to exploit Edison's patent). However, until 1887 all the company's profits were swallowed up in litigation costs, meaning that only the last 6 years of the patent term returned any profits, Ediswan keeping manufacture to themselves. Lamps were expensive because Platinum was the only metal then known that would make a reliable vacuum-tight seal to glass, but UK users did get reliable lamps. Unfortunately for Ediswan, oppressive government legislation which would have resulted in effective confiscation of electricity undertakings by local authorities before their owners had been able to recoup their outlay, almost killed the fledgling electricity industry, and the mass market for their lamps, stone dead. <br /><br />As Edison's patents were generally not upheld in mainland Europe, a free-for all situation existed, resulting in ruthless cost-cutting that meant that only cheap lamps of poor quality and short life were produced, using metals such as Iron instead of Platinum that soon leaked, and even those could not be made for a profit. As a consequence, the lamp manufacturers got together and formed a cartel whose members agreed minimum prices that would allow good quality lamps to be manufactured and sold at a profit. <br /><br />Later, when the Tungsten filament lamp was invented and patented, the British GEC acquired the UK rights and, no doubt mindful of Ediswan's unfortunate experiences with enforcement, made licences freely available, content to rake in the royalties from third parties as well as making lamps themselves. At that time, a patentee could set legally-enforceable prices of products made under a patent, so there was no problem with price-cutting by the competition. <br />Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60745622683654860962018-02-16T12:41:52.484+00:002018-02-16T12:41:52.484+00:00It's all about the 'free-market'. Pate...It's all about the 'free-market'. Patents mean you take the risks and the rewards. No one else has to fund you for it or be damaged by your risks. It shouldn't be like that because government should be capable of helping individual industries as needed with appropriate incentives. However governments are simply too incompetent to do so. It's not about it being impossible for government to help. It's about them not inclined to botherGovernment lovernoreply@blogger.com