On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 17:18, Dan Reese wrote: > I never mentioned "socialize healthcare" or "patent monopolies." I just > pointed out that if you remove monetary rewards (which patents and > copyrights are designed to protect), then a lot of motivation to innovate > is lost. I also limited my comments to "a company" and excluded > "individuals" who often have altruistic motives outside of money.
It is interesting to note that patents and copyrights that very nearly killed several industries including aeronautics. In fact, it was the government "liberating" certain patents for the sake of the war effort that really allow airplane technology to leap forward, whereas before it was fairly slow and locked up with patents and court battles. The Wright brothers fought many court battles attempting to keep their technology and know-how locked up. Clearly they did want to make money, and they were brilliant men, but had their's and others' patents not been apprpriated by the government (wwI or II can't remember), I don't know what would have happened. Thomas Edison is another example of stalling technology development through patents and litigation. In fact after Edison invented the first primitive phonograph, he essentially shelved his invention to work on other things, such as improving the electric light bulb. In the meantime, another company (RCA-Victor I velieve) came along and really perfected the idea and made it marketable. Outraged when RCA wanted to sell their product, Edison launched a patent-infringement suit. It drug on for quite a while, and I think it settled out of court somehow, but it wasn't pretty. It nearly killed phonographs as far as consumers were concerned. Another deficiency in our patent and copyright systems is that there's no mechanism to take into account the fact that something can be discovered by more than one person simultaneously and independently. Therefore I propose that patents initially be granted to be of a very short duration (all kinds of patents). After that patent reaches the expiry date, if the owner of the patent is still actively using the patent in some process or product, then a normal extension can be granted. Otherwise the patent expires and the idea is returned to the public domain so that someone who wants to better society can use it and develop it. Copyrights are another issue, and I'm in favor of shortening their duration. Did you know that under the pre-Sonny Bono copyright laws, Disney's copyright on the "Mickey Mouse" character would have expired this year? Thanks to Bono and others, it's now copyrighted for at least another 50 years. Is Disney alive to benefit from this? Anyway. Michael > > I guess I just really doubt that a scenario where the "the company > profits without any need for 'ownership' of the idea" would work in real > life as you suggest. > > --Dan > > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 20:07:58 +0000 (UTC), "Jason Holt" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Dan Reese wrote: > > > Again, the company wouldn't have any motivation because no one will pay > > > $10B to the company if I have the same cure "on sale" for $1B two weeks > > > later. > > > > It's interesting that you blasted socialized health care in your earlier > > message as having no motivation to perform since it's a monopoly. But > > now you > > claim that a company has no motivation *without* patent monopolies. > > > > There are several scenarios in which my solution works; I'll leave you to > > work > > the others out, since they're simple applications of free market > > economics. > > > > The cancer patients and insurance companies gather together their B > > dollar > > bounty. They contact well regarded pharm company and offer them $B if > > they > > can produce a working cancer cure within a certain amount of time. P > > consults > > its accountants and engineers, who claim a C% chance of finding a claim > > within > > the alotted time, at a cost of R dollars. If R/C < B, they accept the > > challenge. In fact, if they can work out a function f(R)=C, they can > > even > > maximize their expected profit. > > > > Note that the company profits without any need for "ownership" of the > > idea. > > The patients and insurance companies have already determined that their > > investment is worth it, and so wealth is created for them as well. The > > fact > > that everyone else in the world also benefits is frosting on top. Third > > world > > countries, future cancer patients and all the rest can be grateful for > > the > > pharm company and investors, and motivated to likewise put up cash when > > they're able. > > > > -J > > > > > > ____________________ > > BYU Unix Users Group > > http://uug.byu.edu/ > > ___________________________________________________________________ > > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list > > ____________________ > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- Michael Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
