Development of Patents (Essay Sample)

The Development of the Patent System
Student’s Name
Institution’s Affiliation
The Development of the Patent System
Ideas are good, but one can do nothing without sharing or giving others a chance to use and benefit from them. However, few people would never think of a need to come up with a concept and then have some restrictions applied. Patenting promotes the mind of innovativeness and safeguarding product use for the best interest. In this way, it increases the value of the package. It should be identified that a person’s right over his or her own skills is not a measure to limit sharing of property use but intended for promoting efficiency. Patents discourage counterfeits. And once a person is given an exclusive right, one feels relaxed and can invent since he or she will eventually benefit. Therefore, a copyright entitles one to manufacture and use a product of choice. Preference for the modern patent system should be geared towards dynamic efficiency to foster modernization, which in turn drives to personal and economic development. The nature of exclusive rights must not be assumed as a way to create a monopoly and eventual jeopardizing future inventions from being created. It should be a transition based on current knowledge and thus offering a competitive advantage notwithstanding the complexities and controversies.
Patent as an integral part of the invention has existed for many years (Jaffe & Lerner, 2011). The British Parliament laid out the nature and foundation of patents in 1623-24 as an attempt to create awareness of rewarding inventors (Davis, 2001). The Parliament stated that prominence was to be granted to the original inventor. Years later, the patent legislation had already been adopted by most European countries, the U.S. and Japan (Rudyk, 2013). Following these efforts, the system was incorporated to cater for the shifting demands of the industrial revolution. Thus, there was a rebirth in the ways of promoting individual reputation. Talking about a more classic example, the U.S. has three types of patent rights. Firstly, the utility patents are rights given to a person who discovers a new and valuable process that improves a product. Another type of protection issued is the design patents intended for those who promote ornamental value (Inventor Resources, 2014). Moreover, one more granted official status is to a person who has distinct information regarding a variety of plant. The owner is given the right to exclude others from producing or using the discovery for a period (Inventor Resources, 2014). Moreover, the inventor exercises full control of the new design without interference from others.
Relating to the mentioned patents, it should be revealed that benefit is to maintain a pattern that corrects errors in producing and using products. Therefore, enforcing an out-and-out value is an indication of distinguishing efforts towards the goods and services from those of others. Therefore, a change in the nature of inventions and the role of patent protection confirms the need for prominent rights (Jaffe & Lerner, 2011). In the traditional patent system, a right protected a single product and hence the existence of monopoly power in the market. Thus, the original inventors could exclude others from making or using the concept in any form for a limited time. However, it should be stated that although the mentioned approach allows in building up a market force and getting temporary economic gains, static inefficiency in the economy is created. The effect is that there is a hindered development in further inventions. It is expected that the benefits from these inventions outweigh the production costs. However, the monopoly created is hurtful to the economies. Nevertheless, it should be declared that temporary protection is a calculated approach towards rewarding the investors’ risks and expenses.
Talking about the modern system, patenting has been extended to strengthen new areas. After the intensification of the patent system in the 1980s, the number of applications to them substantially increased particularly in multifaceted technological packages (Geiger & Hilty, 2005). In these environments, it was identified that firms needed a legal method that could allow them to take any action against any competitor who sought to use knowledge as theirs (Geiger & Hilty, 2005). On the other hand, the amount of official rights to property filed to protect company’s packages creates a patent thicket. The limitation of a similar approach in the process of incorporating new ideas may be the eventual outcome. Individuals may hack their way to commercializing the product, and it may end up that the inventor does not benefit or attain the desired objectives. Although firms and individuals have realized the need to establish a mark in the invention, limiting others to exploit the idea and making a suitable connection does not impress or express confidence in their authorship.
Despite the preceding benefits, patenting creates controversies. The case of “innovation is sequential” (Bessen & Maskin, 2009) generates a mixed interpretation of what entails an invention. It is common knowledge that one invention leads to another suggesting that imitation might promote strong patent (Park, 2008). Therefore, if the first inventor is given exceptional rights, the flow of invention from that initial endeavor will be automatically hampered. Individuals and innovating firms may thus find themselves in an awkward position. Moreover, it would be hard to welcome competition as the potential of being imitated or imitating is high. In such cases, it can be argued that sequential innovation should be intended for building an existing package while harmonizing the probability of attaining a new level (Bessen & Maskin, 2009).
Beyond any doubt, it should be recognized that the desired objective to hasten the use of the available service or product may not materialize if patenting does not allow flexibility. An exclusive rights system that guarantees unconditional protection prevents any future inventions that might emerge. Moreover, an exceptional problem with the counterargument of a patent right is that it ignores the likelihood of potential and future profits to the innovators. The seriousness of the matter is that the owner may not be well-informed of the rival’s future gain (Park, 2008). Thus, the modification may not build on the predecessor’s effort and thus the probability of serving the needs of the current invention put in doubt. Here, it is seen that the level of innovativeness creates a gap as the hypothesis developed is that new model moves to the opposite direction and thus correspond to weaker innovation.
On the contrary, the patent system should not be viewed as the one that creates a problem. However, this would depend on solving the issue of appropriability (Davis, 2001). Knowledge reveals that although market participation is a concern, disparity can be eliminated. Economists have recognized that the design of patent systems determines the balance between static and dynamic efficiency. Studies establish that some of the patent design aspects have first-order effects on innovations in terms of fees charged (De Rassenfosse & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2012). In other words, firms can exploit their own knowledge without paying any cost. The advantage is that there will be no need for research and development as this will decline over time, provided the inventor does not hinder such measures. The d...