simo wrote: > On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 17:19 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote: > >> You don't patent things because they are >> "valuable", you patent them to make them valuable. That's the whole >> point of IPR as far as I can see. >> > > I disagree. > You patent things to make them exploitable when there is a need of an > initial investment in research. > Patents, in theory, should protect investments in realizing valuable > ideas by granting a short term monopoly. >
Sure, but there is no guarantee research leads to a patentable product. The investment is effectively risk capital, and the patent balances that. The investment could be lost. > Anything that does not require an important initial investment should > not be granted a patent, because it does not deserve it. > I think that's a different model. If you care about the value created, then you fund the research up-front (somehow) and remove the risk. >> So they just don't do it ;) There are plenty of SMEs that are patent >> holders, and this is really just an argument to reduce the cost of >> obtaining a patent, which isn't really what we want. >> > > It would level a bit the field by allowing more SMEs to get patents, but > certainly will not change any of the problems of the current system Absolutely. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
