On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, 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.
I was referring to this statement in your earlier post:
"Same problem with health care -- "free" health care for everyone (paid for
by taxes) will only decrease the quality of that care as the incentive to
focus on the patient decreases."
Such health care is commonly called "socialized", because the government takes
care of everybody in that respect. In a sense, the government claims a
monopoly on healthcare. Likewise, in legal jargon, patents are considered
government-granted monopolies on a particular idea.
We do certainly agree that money can be an effective motivator for companies.
I just wanted to point out that plenty of scenarios exist in which companies
can be motivated by profit, but without the need for patents or copyright.
> 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.
Certainly your prerogative. My combative tone in the earlier post probably
added to that doubt, for which I apologize. But you might try out some
thought experiments along those lines; lots of business systems work
effectively which have nothing to do with patent law, and many of them would
work just as well in the areas which currently do involve patents (like
pharmaceuticals).
-J
____________________
BYU Unix Users Group
http://uug.byu.edu/
___________________________________________________________________
List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
