15. Boldrin, M. and Levine, D.K. (2013), “The case against patents”,

Question 1

What is the main argument in “The Case Against Patents”?

Answer 1

The authors argue that patents do not increase innovation or productivity and often create more harm than benefit.

Example: Giving out more patents is like giving out more trophies—but it doesn’t mean more people ran the race.

Question 2

What is the “patent puzzle”?

Answer 2

Despite a massive increase in patents, innovation and productivity haven’t improved significantly.

Example: The number of books in a library grew, but no one is reading more.

Question 3

What do Boldrin & Levine find in their review of 24 studies on patents?

Answer 3

Most studies show that stronger patent laws increase patenting, but not actual innovation.

Example: More wrappers, but not more candy.

Question 4

When do patents become more popular among industries?

Answer 4

Patents are used more when industries mature, not during early innovation phases.

Example: After the gold rush, miners fence off land instead of digging for gold.

Question 5

How do patents discourage future innovation?

Answer 5

Existing patents block new inventors with legal risks, licensing fees, and complex litigation.

Example: Like trying to build a sandcastle, but every grain of sand belongs to someone else.

Question 6

What is “defensive patenting”?

Answer 6

Companies build large patent portfolios just to protect themselves from lawsuits, not to innovate.

Example: Like buying weapons to avoid getting attacked—not to win a battle.

Question 7

What role do “patent trolls” play in the system?

Answer 7

They sue innovators without producing anything, just to make money from legal settlements.

Example: Like someone suing you for trespassing on a sidewalk they never built.