> Those are two very different things. And most of those R&D shops are attached to companies capable of doing something with the research.
They're often similarly positioned vis-à-vis the patent system. E.g. even with patent protection, SRI got a pretty short end of the stick relative to Apple despite doing much of the real innovation behind Siri.
> If you're looking to come up with ideas and make money from them, as opposed to publishing them for general benefit, academia is the wrong place to do that.
Maybe there would be more innovation if that weren't the case. In any case, I find it hard to fault universities for deciding they don't want to do free R&D for industry.
You probably disagree with this, but the platonic ideal of the patent system, for many contemporary proponents, is enabling a world where everyone who participates in the incremental process of innovation can get compensated for their contribution, instead of a windfall going to whoever takes the last step, or more typically, takes a proven idea and throws UX engineers and a big sales team at it.
> You probably disagree with this, but the platonic ideal of the patent system, for many contemporary proponents, is enabling a world where everyone who participates in the incremental process of innovation can get compensated for their contribution, instead of a windfall going to whoever takes the last step, or more typically, takes a proven idea and throws UX engineers and a big sales team at it.
I agree that that's the platonic ideal of the patent system. (Though I'd note that its documented motivation is not to reward innovation per se, but to encourage the production and most importantly publication of it; reward is a means, not an end, and I think that's a critical distinction.) I also believe, and I hope you'd agree, that the reality of the patent system does not come anywhere close to that "ideal". Furthermore, I believe the harm and limitation to innovation far outstrips the encouragement, especially in tech.
I'm not going to comment on the more challenging issue of how to fund innovation in fields like medicine. However, at least in the tech industry, if the patent system evaporated tomorrow, the world wouldn't end, no company or product we actually cared about would go away, on balance we'd be better off.
I agree the system doesn't live up to the ideal, mainly because efficient patent markets don't exist. I don't agree we'd necessarily be better off without it in "tech." Product companies would be better off, certainly. R&D companies and universities, probably not.
I disagree that good products don't go away. What does the world look like where there is no SRI to do the hard part of Siri, just companies like Apple sitting around waiting for something they can package up and sell? What does the world look like without ARM? What does the world look like when Qualcomm spends a lot less money on R&D because competitors can easily use the results by reverse-engineering their firmware? What does the world look like when the ITC never happened, and Chinese firms contained to engage in flooding the international market with copies of American router designs?
I mean, I don't have to mention all these things. Just look at the lobbying materials of tech companies in the 1990's. The tech industry had a huge hand in creating the patent regime that exists today, just as Microsoft and Adobe did in creating the copyright regime we have.
They're often similarly positioned vis-à-vis the patent system. E.g. even with patent protection, SRI got a pretty short end of the stick relative to Apple despite doing much of the real innovation behind Siri.
> If you're looking to come up with ideas and make money from them, as opposed to publishing them for general benefit, academia is the wrong place to do that.
Maybe there would be more innovation if that weren't the case. In any case, I find it hard to fault universities for deciding they don't want to do free R&D for industry.
You probably disagree with this, but the platonic ideal of the patent system, for many contemporary proponents, is enabling a world where everyone who participates in the incremental process of innovation can get compensated for their contribution, instead of a windfall going to whoever takes the last step, or more typically, takes a proven idea and throws UX engineers and a big sales team at it.