经济学人 精读 第30篇 专利亟待改革 但这不表示支持偷窃

经济学人精读第30篇专利亟待改革但这不表

示支持偷窃

2015年10月6日09:23 阅读1373

Innovation

Time to fix patents

Ideas fuel the economy. Today’s patent systems are a rotten way of rewarding them

创新

解决专利问题迫在眉睫

创意推动经济。今天的专利体系是一种陈腐的奖励方式

IN 1970 the United States recognised the potential of crop science by broadening the sco pe of patents in agriculture. Patents are supposed to reward inventiveness, so that shoul d have galvanised progress. Yet, despite providing extra protection, that change and a fu rther broadening of the regime in the 1980s led neither to more private research into whe at nor to an increase in yields. Overall, the productivity of American agriculture continued its gentle upward climb, much as it had before.

1970年美国通过扩大农业方面的专利范围，认可了作物学的潜力。专利意在奖励发明创造，所以本应激励进步。但是，尽管提供了额外保护，这一变化以及 20 世纪 80 年代专利范围的进一步扩大既没有在小麦领域引入更多私人研究，也没有带来产量增长。总的说来，美国农业的生产力继续缓缓提升，几乎和之前一样。

In other industries, too, stronger patent systems seem not to lead to more innovatioN. Th at alone would be disappointing, but the evidence suggests something far worse. Patents are supposed to spread knowledge, by obliging holders to lay out their innovation for all to see; they often fail, because patent-lawyers are masters of obfuscation. Instead, the system has created a parasitic ecology of trolls and defensive patent-holders, who ai m to block innovation, or at least to stand in its way unless they can grab a share of the s poils. An early study found that newcomers to the semiconductor business had to buy lic ences from incumbents for as much as $200m.

Patents should spur bursts of innovation; instead, they are used to lock in incumbents’ ad vantages.

在其他行业也是一样，更强的专利体系看来并未引发更多创新。单单这一点已经令人失望，却还有证据显示出更糟糕的情形。专利的目的是传播知识，要求持有人把他们的创新

向大众展示，但常常力不能及，因为专利律师是含糊其辞的大师。相反，这一体系创造出了一种寄生生态，专利囤积商和防御型的专利持有者居于其间，他们的目标是限制创新，或者至少百般阻挠，除非他们能分得一杯羹。之前一项研究表明，新进入半导体行业的企业不得不花费高达 2 亿美元向现有企业购买许可证。专利本应促进创新爆发，相反，它们却被用来锁定现有持有人的优势。

The patent system is expensive. A decade-old study reckons that in 2005, without the te mporary monopoly patents bestow, America might have saved three-quarters of its $210 billion bill for prescription drugs. The expense would be worth it if patents brought innovat ion and prosperity. They don’t.

专利体系十分昂贵。一项长达十年的研究估算，如果没有因专利权形成的一时垄断， 005 年美国在处方药上 2100 亿美元的花费可能会节省四分之三。如果专利权能带来创新和繁荣，那么还可算是物有所值，然而现实并非如此。

Innovation fuels the abundance of modern life. From Google’s algorithms to a new treatm ent for cystic fibrosis, it underpins the knowledge in the “knowledge economy”. The cost o f the innovation that never takes place because of the flawed patent system is incalculabl e. Patent protection is spreading, through deals such as the planned Trans-Pacific Partne rship, which promises to cover one-third of world trade. The aim should be to fix the syste m, not make it more pervasive.

创新推动了现代生活的丰富多彩。无论是谷歌的算法还是囊胞性纤维症的新疗法，都证实了“知识经济”中“知识”的力量。因为专利制度的缺陷而导致创新无法实现，这样的损失不可估量。专利保护正通过一些协议向全球扩展，例如酝酿中的跨太平洋伙伴关系协议

（Trans-Pacific Partnership）将覆盖全球三分之一的贸易。目标应当是修正这一体系，而不是让它遍及四方。

The English patent

One radical answer would be to abolish patents altogether—indeed, in 19th-century Britai n, that was this newspaper’s preference. But abolition flies in the face of the intuition that if you create a drug or invent a machine, you have a claim on your work just as you woul d if you had built a house. Should someone move into your living room uninvited, you wo uld feel justifiably aggrieved. So do those who have their ideas stolen.

英式专利

一个极端的答案是废除所有专利权。的确，在 19 世纪的英国，本刊偏向这一选择。但是废除专利权与人们的直觉背道而驰：如果你开发出一种药或者发明了一台机器，你对自己的成