tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8940320270077006915..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Innocuous Innovation - The Rise of the MaintainersVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-92127803269133846992016-05-09T20:49:38.152+01:002016-05-09T20:49:38.152+01:00 I think that this article fits in the discussion:... I think that this article fits in the discussion:<br />http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-economic-disease-eating-away-at-the-u-s/<br /><br /><br />Innovation does not happen out of nothing, there needs to be some fertile environment and some money... <br /><br />A question for Ip economists: <br />Is there a chart of IP filings vs yearly GDP growth? Would such a chart make any sense? (I am not an economist)doggnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-27630681753158917632016-04-26T08:55:34.531+01:002016-04-26T08:55:34.531+01:00I've been meaning to do a post for some time o...I've been meaning to do a post for some time on why patents are a poor indication of innovation (I've mentioned it before but not really gone into detail.) It's not an anti-patent bias, it's a pro-good data approach.<br /><br />As for lobbying and patent strategies... Nicola Searlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05582267523535551739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51980328133563519142016-04-23T20:24:39.740+01:002016-04-23T20:24:39.740+01:00dogg,
Not here in your posts, but see Christensen...dogg,<br /><br />Not here in your posts, but see Christensen and disruptive innovation.<br /><br />Those that are established (players) "do not need (many) patents" - and rest assured, do not WANT new players with patents to upset their game.<br /><br />Why do you think Google spends so much time and money in the US government?THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-3244537940454243582016-04-22T22:53:13.511+01:002016-04-22T22:53:13.511+01:00I am not sure whether I understood your remark cor...I am not sure whether I understood your remark correctly, but I was just trying to summarize the main idea of the article. <br /><br />The article only tries make the point that in an oligopoly, players don't need (many) patents, because they prosper without innovation and without competition.<br /><br />I do not see an attack on patents here.<br />doggnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38887687255484929622016-04-22T00:55:50.190+01:002016-04-22T00:55:50.190+01:00"comprehensive narrative" is just a buzz..."comprehensive narrative" is just a buzzword for the battle of the mind - it is NOT an objectively driven item, but is rather very much a subjective and philosophically driven item.<br /><br />Awhile back this blog had a story on that language battleground. That story would be worth re-posting (along with its comments).THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77668267226784742222016-04-22T00:52:24.225+01:002016-04-22T00:52:24.225+01:00Respectfully Nicole, such IS an attack on patents....Respectfully Nicole, such IS an attack on patents.<br /><br />Playing "nice" with how you describe it does not change what is happening.<br /><br />At all.<br /><br />One can easily apply a "critical analysis of IP" and NOT engage in an attack of the basic (and well proven) value of IP.<br /><br />Your comment of "<i>my brain started screaming when I saw 'patents as a proxy for innovation.'</i>" says more than you think it might.<br /><br />And for the record, the other prong of the attack on patents is from the Left (as in, from academia).THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68982575124475397892016-04-21T09:08:02.630+01:002016-04-21T09:08:02.630+01:00Thanks dogg, for the link - my brain started screa...Thanks dogg, for the link - my brain started screaming when I saw "patents as a proxy for innovation." However, the rest of the article does provide interesting comments. Decreased competition between firms, decreased incentives to innovate - not something that is typically discussed in IP. I like it. And the point that the its increased capital utilisation.<br /><br />And THE US anon - I wouldn't classify the critical analysis of IP as an attack on patents. Our assumptions should be open to critique.<br /><br />Mariia - indeed! Nicola Searlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05582267523535551739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68341309413574888372016-04-21T00:56:11.772+01:002016-04-21T00:56:11.772+01:00dogg,
Thanks for the article, but even before I r...dogg,<br /><br />Thanks for the article, but even before I read it, I would amend your post and state that the big players are perfectly willing to play both sides of the patent game - but would prefer to avoid disruptive innovations and would LOVE to compete on those factors that are already in their benefit: size and established presence.<br /><br />This is but one part of a two pronged philosophical attack on patents (called Attack from the Right).THE US anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56426612494050172912016-04-20T20:08:00.106+01:002016-04-20T20:08:00.106+01:00This article links the drop in innovation with the...This article links the drop in innovation with the rise of concentration in markets: https://growthecon.com/blog/Comp-Growth/<br /><br />There are some nuances, but basically he says that a few big players may not need to innovate.<br /><br />doggnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44852618243183129972016-04-17T13:41:59.403+01:002016-04-17T13:41:59.403+01:00Though-provoking post. However, isn't it too s...Though-provoking post. However, isn't it too simplified to say that all kinds of IP is about productivity and innovation? Aren't trademarks, which from economists point of view are there in order to lower search costs and fix information asymmetries, supposed to be focused more on maintenance rather than productivity?<br />Mariianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86489661105728725222016-04-17T09:09:52.712+01:002016-04-17T09:09:52.712+01:00I think where we are heading is a rising conscious...I think where we are heading is a rising consciousness that the innovation story is a incomplete one. We need a more comprehensive narrative. Nicola Searlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05582267523535551739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36429107337340002962016-04-16T13:22:23.036+01:002016-04-16T13:22:23.036+01:00High tech increases inequality until the tech is c...High tech increases inequality until the tech is commoditised, then it just increases quality.Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-67280000632972889632016-04-15T16:18:55.274+01:002016-04-15T16:18:55.274+01:00Economies should be pushed from tertiary, to quate...Economies should be pushed from tertiary, to quaternary, to quinary, developing and utilising ever more complex technologies, investment streams and trying to enhance all quality of life indicators. Innovation is important in all of this, but is not everything. High tech will cause increased inequality as it makes the boundaries between have's and have not's even stronger. That must be recognised and dealt with. Making our societies more civilised and more inclusive is much harder than innovation, but more necessary. 'Maintainers' are probably the people who take responsibility, work in difficult situations and disproportionately contribute to society, and so what they do should be recognised.Doersnoreply@blogger.com