Comments on: The Case Against Patents

By: Enrique

Enrique — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:05:49 +0000

Fair enough. But even if we concede that an “extreme point” is easier to defend than a nuanced or subtle point, at the same time, the very “extremeness” of a given point makes it less likely that we will be able to reach that point in a single step without some kind of Schellingesque “tipping point” or (what I like to call) a “reverse-equilibrium” point — and to reach that magical point (where large change is possible), all we need is a given number of small steps that in turn combine to produce a large and unexpected aggregate effect

By: jeff

jeff — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:33:19 +0000

Extreme points are bright lines and easy to defend. Its clear what “abolished” means. Its less clear how to define intermediate policies. That makes them vulnerable to the slippery slope.

http://cheaptalk.org/2012/03/27/the-slippery-slope/

By: Jim S

Jim S — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:14:31 +0000

I had the same reaction. “No patents” is a special case of a patent policy. Imagine a patent system could be parametrized by a single number in [0,1]. Why is “0″ the only number magically immune to the “political economy of patents”?

By: Turing Test

Turing Test — Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:24:47 +0000

Logical fallacy alert: wholesale abolition of the patent system is even less politically feasible than incremental reform