M. Fioretti wrote:
You can do it with small material things which can be built with
*very* little space and money, or in "environments" where, again
unlike software, everybody plays by the same rules. But you can't
"release early and often" new fuels, cars, microprocessors, or the
extremely complex machinery needed to build even one single working
prototype. Not when you want to actually build and sell many units.
Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive than
cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive model (some
new fuels are cheaper, others aren't). They still grow progress in
incremental steps. It's also interesting to note that new fules, cars
and microprocessors also don't have the secretive model you described,
and this lack of secrecy or monopoly has been the source of inmsense
growth in new fuels, cars and microprocessors. This has been the case
for as long as there have been projects that require high expenditures
(several hundred years, beginning with large telescopes for astronomy).
And they have all been done without secrecy or monopoly, and they have
all grown inmensely because of the lack of secrecy and monopoly.
So yes, actually, it definitely scales, all the way up to the largest
projects ever made. The thing about using patents to "protect" invention
is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields, most notably the
pharmaceutical industry (and the pharmaceutical industry uses labs that
are cheaper than particle accelerators or fusion reactors). It is a lot
less common that it might seem at first. But truth is, most discovery is
not done in the big-bang model. Not in the past, and not today.
Historically, yes. It was a simpler world, with simpler technology to
discover.
1) Proportionally, telescopes and other technology of the time was still
quite very expensive.
2) What I said still applies to the modern world.
Again, it would be wonderful if all inventions could happen in the way
you describe.
They can.
And I'm sure that the benefit that might be derived from the finnancial
incentive is far outweight by the slow down in discovery due to
government imposed monopolies.
And I surely want to see a world where as much
scientific research as possible is funded by governments and other
non-profit institutions. for the common good.
Don't confuse the small-step development model with aulterism. Perfectly
selfish companies can bring about discovery without patents, and earn
money. And indeed, discovery is faster. A good example of this is,
ironicaly, in the computer industry. Microprocessors are not packed with
patents. Nothing prohibits you from creating a microprocessor that
copies the x86 design, inspite of the fact that it took time, effort and
money to make. But you don't see the microprocessor industry stagnant.
In fact, you see the opposite, it's seen fantastic growth.
Now, what would happen if (say) Intel had been granted a monopoly on the
x86 chip model? Then AMD would not have been able to compete with them
by copying the model, which would have removed a motivator for Intell to
improve the technology further. And today microprocessors would not be
nearly as advanced as they are today.
The same holds true for cars, new fuels, and many other things that
require heavy investment.
But I am convinced that
*real* patents, as they were meant to be, would NOT hurt or slow down
that process, and stimulate a lot of activity in the meantime.
I have no doubt that if Intel had gotten a patent on the x86 chip
design, that would have severely hurt the development of microprocessors.
Likewise, I've seen sound medical research been hurt bye either patents
or patent-like provisions from NAFTA. There was a case where an American
company found a very expensive, and accurate method of detecting a type
of cancer (I forget the details). A Canadian company found a method that
was only about 80-90% accurate (based on looking at proteins, I remember
that bit, it was an indirect method) but was less than 1/10th the cost.
The American company successfully sued the Canadian under NAFTA
provisions and forced it to stop. Notice, this was a completely
different system of diagnosing the same illness.
I can't believe that this sort of system stimulates progress.
Cheers,
Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
