From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


My question is - who cares what these people think? Wikipedia would godzuple in size if we cite every paper published that criticized the patent system somehow. Generally we use secondary sources - reviews of issues - rather than primary sources like this one - for exactly this reason.

The primary economic theories supporting patent law hold that inventors and innovators need patents to recoup the costs associated with research, inventing, and commercializing; but this reasoning is weakened if the new technologies decrease these costs.[1] A 2016 paper argued for substantial weakening of patents because current technologies (e.g. 3-D printing, cloud computing, synthetic biology, etc.) have reduced the cost of innovation. [1]  


I'll add that the argument is completely irrelevant to say, drugs, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars and ten years or so to develop, and no 3D printer or internet of things is going to change that. but whatever Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

When you say “Who cares what these people think?”, what do you mean by “these people”? Nowa (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog you are right -people's specific opinions are not relevant - but the logic in a peer reviewed paper is....You did not seem to read the article in question the logic seems very sound to me and it was a new idea which is why I included it - specifically research in all areas is reduced by the application of new technologies. Drug discovery is no exception -- costs are reduced by simulation that can be run on cloud computing for a tiny fraction of the costs in the past (e.g. computation time is one of the reasons for higher drug costs [1]). Similarly, 3-D printing enables more rapid combinatorial approaches to drug discovery and the use of 3d printed reactionware also reduces costs while increasing innovation potential (see: [Kitson, P.J., Rosnes, M.H., Sans, V., Dragone, V. and Cronin, L., 2012. Configurable 3D-Printed millifluidic and microfluidic ‘lab on a chip’reactionware devices. Lab on a Chip, 12(18), pp.3267-3271. and Kitson, P.J., Symes, M.D., Dragone, V. and Cronin, L., 2013. Combining 3D printing and liquid handling to produce user-friendly reactionware for chemical synthesis and purification. Chemical Science, 4(8), pp.3099-3103. and Symes, M.D., Kitson, P.J., Yan, J., Richmond, C.J., Cooper, G.J., Bowman, R.W., Vilbrandt, T. and Cronin, L., 2012. Integrated 3D-printed reactionware for chemical synthesis and analysis. Nature Chemistry, 4(5), pp.349-354.)--Trumpms (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not going to debate the cost structure of drug discovery and development with you, but what you write is la la land. The policy/guideline based point here is that this is a primary source giving these authors thoughts, and every policy and guideline calls us to use secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Jtdog: I think this reference fairly meets Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship “Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.” This reference was published in a peer-reviewed law journal. I also think it fairly meets the definition of a secondary source in that it largely summarizes what others have said. More importantly, it draws attention to a criticism of patents that's not currently in the article. New technologies, such as 3D printing, are lowering the cost of innovation and hence innovations affected by these new technologies may not need the same protection to stimulate initial risky investment.Nowa (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Nowa: Agreed I think we can all agree this particular article on patents is very very weak on criticisms of patents and doesn't even pretend to cover the literature on it - so I was trying to beef it up with some peer reviewed literature. If it is ok with the more senior editors here - I am going to complete a mini literature review on the other criticisms and add in the best peer-reviewed published source for each claim.
Jtdog -before I do this I want to make sure everything I do is not immediately deleted. You are clearly a much more senior wikipedian and your edits on other pages appear to be mostly positive. However, I noted that at least your last few edits of this section are almost all negative (meaning your edits are reducing the information not increasing it). Besides deleting my modest addition, you just made an edit to the criticism section that weakened the last edit substantially by limiting the criticism to info tech (which I think is not at all what Boldrin was saying) and you put in a sentence that reads "Patent applications are a good proxy for innovation." in the section on patent criticism. I don't see how that is a criticism - in this particular instance that would be a benefit and should be moved up. It is not clear to me why you appear to be systematically weakening this section. Please explain so I can ensure I am sticking to the rules. -- Trumpms (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection to criticism but it should be cited to secondary sources that provide an overview of the field, not this or that primary source. Again this is what every policy and guideline calls for. I will look for some reviews of the issues. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
My reading of the following is that review articles are preferred - but that primary research is second best and acceptable as long as it is in peer-reviewed reputable journals - and particularity if it is cited a lot. For the Osborne article I think it is clear it is summarizing a lot of other literature- it has over 300 footnotes- most of which are citations to other law journal articles. My plan is to use that and Boldrin's book (cited over 900 times according to Google Scholar) and fortunately open access. --Trumpms (talk) 11:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.
One can confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in a citation index, especially in fields well covered by such indexes, should be used with caution, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context

Jytdog weakening criticism arguments[edit]

Jytdog: I was just about to start into some major editing and I looked back at the article log to see if you had moved the benefit text out and fixed your mis-representation of Boldrin - but realized you not only didnt do that but had just cut another peer reviewed source from the criticism section and weakened the section even more. The Barnett article you cut reviewed over 70 articles that looked at the trivial nature of IP and has been cited 43 times according to Google Scholar. This appears to be a reliable source - exactly the kind I was about to add a lot more of -- would you please explain your reasoning for weakening the patent criticism section in detail. -- Trumpms (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: So I just went through the edit log of this page and the Societal views on patents page - and found that your editing is almost always reducing (e.g. removing content particularly that is critical of patents). I have no doubt that you are an editor of good will - but I noticed in your COI disclosure [2] that you "work for a startup company developing drugs for acute neurological disorders..." You appear to be technically sophisticated - so I would suspect that you personally or at the very least your employer is heavily invested in the patenting process, which appears to be a COI of your continued editing of these types of articles. I recommend that you do another "Self-initiated COI Investigation" - but from my skimming of your edits I think the bias is clear. That said - I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what to do about COI. I think you should continue to actively edit this page - and put the best possible cited arguments for the continued use of the patent system - but put it in Patent#Rationale (or even change that section title to "Patent Benefits". In addition, however, I request that you stop deleting criticisms supported by peer-reviewed articles. I think with both those actions we can make a really strong wikipedia article. -- Trumpms (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPG - article talk pages are for discussing article content. If you want to discuss my behavior I would be happy to do that, but the place for that is your Talk page or mine. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I dont mind moving the discussion to either talk page - but I thought it would be more clear to do it here - the section/pages in question. Please respond in detail on my talk page so I can understand your POV. Trumpms (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Again, per the TPG it is not appropriate here. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Fine -- please respond on my talk page - Trumpms (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog was unable to provide any reasoned argument showing that he/she was not actively weakening the patent criticism section on my talk page or hat he.she did not have a COI. I have asked him/her to stop deleting content from that section and to have other wikipedians do it and instead be constructive and work on substantiating the benefit section. I plan to beef up the criticism section that is really weak at this point first - and then I will beef up the benefit section that at least has some of the main content but it missing many references. I will only make statements that can be backed up with a peer-reviewed study in an archival well-respected journal. I would ask that other wikipedians carefully monitor and undo any vandalism or inappropriate editing by either myself or Jytdog. Thank you - Trumpms (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Book “Against Intellectual Property”[edit]

I've move the following material from the Criticism section to here for further vetting. It's not clear if the referenced book is notable, although the authors certainly are. If the book is notable, I recommend an article be written about it first, before we summarize it here, or someone finds a reference that summarizes the content of the book.

However, in the seminal book co-authored by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, Against intellectual monopoly the criticisms from dozens of academics and lawyers was summarized.
I don't yet feel confident about starting a new article - but here is some background on the notability of the book -- According to Google Scholar [3] it has been cited 905 times, which is pretty significant in most fields.

Other web evidence -- there are 6 pages of google search in News for "Against intellectual monopoly":

It appears clear that the impact of this book is much more concentrated in academia and law journals (very notable) and although covered in the popular press to some extent (marginally notable) it appears largely marginalized by the mainstream media, which of course has a strong COI to maintain current IP rules (the book also covers copy right) -- so I am not sure how to deal with it in Wikipedia.

I am now going to turn my attention to beefing up the benefits of patents section. -- Trumpms (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to create an article about the book, you need to find reliable secondary sources that talk about the book itself. Why is it important? What impact has it had? Articles from academic or law journals would be fine.--Nowa (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

No incentive[edit]

I removed the following from the benefits section:

Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies don't invest in making the invention a product.[1][not in citation given]

I tried to find a citation for this and could not. All the first hits on Google for "wont innovate without patent" are anti-patent references. In looking for it I found the opposite in a post by the CEO of an open source electronics company about "IP Obesity" [4]. Obviously not all companies share this sentiment of "If your idea is unique, easily copied, and can be sold for profit in a local market, it will be." So I think the sentence should be changed to:

Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, some companies may not invest in making the invention a product.

Although we still need at least one ref for it - Trumpms (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Trumpms (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Markey article. Nowa (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Markey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).