State of Innovation

Patents and Innovation Economics

Gene Quinn Destroys ‘The Economist’ on Patents

The Economist has printed another of their fantasy articles on patents entitled “A question of utility.”  Gene Quinn has written a great article showing the numerous inaccuracies in The Economist’s article entitled “What ‘The Economist’ Doesn’t Get about Patents.”  The Economist article argues that patents were irrelevant to the industrial revolution.  Mr. Quinn shows the fallacy of this statement, but I want to amplify on what he said.  The industrial revolution started in England and the United States, which were the two countries with functioning patent systems.  The industrial revolution was not about industry but about a continuous invention revolution as the book “The Most Powerful Idea in the World” illustrates.  Modern ‘New Growth Economics’ has shown that the only way to increase real per capita incomes, is to increase our level of technology and that means creating new inventions.

econgrowth.smallMy new book Source of Economic Growth tackles these important questions specifically it answers these two questions: 1) What is the source of real per captia increases in wealth? And 2) What was the cause of the industrial revolution?  I provide overwhelming evidence that new inventions are the only way to increase real per capita incomes and property rights for inventions, i.e., patents, are the only way to provide a high enough level of inventing to escape the Malthusian Trap and enter the Industrial Revolution.

Advertisements

August 25, 2015 - Posted by | -Philosophy, Patents | ,

2 Comments »

  1. Well, actually, no, he didn’t destroy anything of the sort. He made some good pro-patent points, but he quoted some stuff which actually didn’t quite say what he said the said and he raved and ranted in the usual Gene fashion, giving the impression that this is a case of someone being asked to understand something when his job depends on his job not understanding it. There are solid argument to be made on both sides, but both sides usually take aim and completely different targets. Perhaps one day we can have a rational, reasoned argument on the merits.

    Comment by Inoff Thered | August 28, 2015 | Reply

    • You make a bunch of vague statements without any real facts or logic – want to try again?

      Comment by dbhalling | September 2, 2015 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: