> Interesting that you should mention the case of Watt holding up steam, because this paper pretty conclusively shows it to be a myth: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1589712

Detailed & convoluted, yes. Conclusive, no. It is interesting that engines dramatically improved after these patents expired.

Another thing that the "Strong Steam, Weak Patents, or,
the Myth of Watt‟s Innovation-Blocking Monopoly, Exploded*" paper detailed was the extraordinary effort that the inventors spent on the legal process. Wouldn't their energy be best served on their core competency, which is invention? Wouldn't society benefit more from inventors inventing instead of dealing with legal issues? I've heard of stories where inventors spent years bitterly defending their patents.

Patent bring innovation into the domain of the legal profession & business administration. Innovation, in it's purest form, is in the domain of the creator (inventor).

> As for a fear of creating a product due to patents, I'm not sure this is a widespread phenomenon.

Having to hire a patent attorney counts as fear. It's certainly an expense & extra administration to creating an innovative product. I've never seen a programmer, or engineer, peruse the patent database to find ideas on solving the problem. Most of the time, the problem is identified, and solutions are proposed & explored.

The fear of being litigated preventing you from creating is akin to the fear of killed in a car accident preventing you seeing your family. We still proceed, but we make every effort to make driving as safe as possible. Ideally, driving would be 100% safe. Ideally, creating would be 100% safe from litigation.

> Of course, my sample is extremely small and this is anecdotal, but all the people I know doing their own startups are either indifferent to, or actually bullish on, patents.

I also work with startups that have patents. It's almost a requirement to have a patent for "defensibility". If this requirement went away, the game would change. I suspect, more emphasis would be put on how well the organization can execute & innovate.

> And this is why we need more empirical studies, because anecdotes and experiences don't add up to data.

It's good to have both. Sometimes studies can be an exercise of local optimization at the expense of global optimization. Anecdotes are a great way to disseminating wisdom to take action.

> But it's not an easy topic, given that even the basic concept of "innovation" is hard to define and almost impossible to measure.

Agreed. That's why it's usually better to err on the side of simplicity. Facts are less obfuscated and the waters are less muddied.

I personally think novelty, untied to economic output, is a better measure. Novelty is easier to define & it is more difficult to redefine by parties interested in promoting an agenda.

---

As a whole, there are only analogous environments and motivations. As a creator, I favor independence. I don't want large amounts of capital & business administration to be a requirement for me to make a living creating things. I want autonomy without having to spending my time in court. I want to have the freedom to create derivative works. I want to have the freedom to invent without having to get a patent or making sure I don't infringe on somebody's patent.

If someone create a derivative work from my work, then I'm happy. I trust that collaborative environments with such a feedback loop creates more global innovation.