M. Fioretti wrote:
Isn't this because there is no market for them, that is the fact that
they are scientific *instruments*, not stuff you could need at home or
sell at the mall? I am all for basic research, but again, does this
apply?
This is like expensive pharmaceutical labs. I'm not saying that the
accelerator itself would be patented, anymore than pharmaceutical labs
are patented. The point is that nuclear research is expensive, just like
pharmaceutical research, because they require expensive equipment. Ditto
for astronomy, solar cells, fusion, cars, microprocessors etc. Even when
the derivatives of those do have market applications.
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
Examples?
x86 processor, solar cells, fusion technology, cars, fuel cells.
The architecture of a new
microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of paper,
The issue is cost. That drawing (which would not fit on any piece of
paper I know of) is very expensive to do. The point is not whether you
need a huge facility to design a microprocessor, but whether there is a
heavy capital investment before you get any money back.
So yes, actually, it definitely scales, all the way up to the
largest projects ever made.
Like what? The pyramids and the gothic cathedrals? Things that, like
accelerators and the telescopes you also mentioned, had no private
use?
Where does "private" come from? Private use has nothing to do with
monopoly rights. Intel is a private company, so are car companies and
many fuel companies. And the products they make are for priate use. The
point is over the use of patents to get a monopoly. They don't.
The thing about using patents to "protect" invention is actually a
very recent aberration in a few fields,
The polio vaccine and the Internet are even more recent. Being recent does
not automatically makes something wrong or worst of what existed
before,
That's not the point I was making. I never said "new = bad" and I don't
know how you got that impression. I was saying that most progress hasn't
come from patents. I was saying that heavy capital investment to produce
science is nothing new and patents are.
Aulterism?
Sorry, I can't type "altruism".
ROFL. Check your facts. Whether they are real or a joke is another
issue, but check your facts before we go further.
Okay, I made a mistake for once in my life.
But in general, the x86 architecture has been more open than the Mac
architecture and this has been a driving reason why that architecture
took off and now dominates the market, instead of the comparatively
closed Mac architecture. So the basic point is still valid. The more
closed system did worse.
Nothing prohibits you from creating a microprocessor that copies the
x86 design.
Today, probably yes, because the patents have probably expired. But if
I had done it when it first appeared on the market, maybe they would
have sued my ass. As they did, IIRC, with AMD some years ago.
They lost that lawsuit btw. Not that it makes a huge difference.
Cheers,
Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
