> On Sep 1, 9:20Âam, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> Yet Another Study Shows That Patents Lead To Sub-Optimal Innovation
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | A few months back, two professors, Andrew W. Torrance and Bill
>> | Tomlinson, published a paper on a simulation game they ran to test out
>> | some of these hypotheses. A bunch of folks submitted this back when it
>> | first came out, but I wanted to spend some time looking over the
>> | details before writing about it. Basically, Torrance and Tomlinson
>> | create a nice simulation system that really does a good job simulating
>> | the various models for innovation with patents or in a more
>> | collaborative world. And, what they found in the simulation they ran
>> | supports what has actually happened in the real world, according to the
>> | research we've discussed in the past:
>> | These results indicate that current patent systems (that is, systems
>> | combining patent and open source protection for inventions) may
>> | generate significantly lower rates of innovation (p<0.05), productivity
>> | (p<0.001), and social utility (p<0.002) than does a commons system.
>> | This suggests that current patent systems may significantly deter,
>> | rather than spur, technological innovation compared to a commons
>> | system.
>> | Specifically, the results compared three separate models: one where
>> | everything gets patented, one where it's a hybrid model with both
>> | patents and a common, and one that was pure commons. The results are
>> | pretty striking. In the pure commons (no patents) world, they ended up
>> | with more innovation, significantly greater productivity and massively
>> | more social utility.
> You can tweek a model to fit any data set you want, you cretin.
> The real test is what happens in the real world,
The real world appears to support the findings of the simulation. Wherever
strong protection of "intellectual property" is enforced, innovation slows
down and cost goes up -- most noticeably in the field of software.
> and if patents were not useful then the Founding Father would not have put
> them in the Constitution.
Ah, the "What was good enough for my great-grandfather to the eighth degree
is good enough for me" argument. Interesting how some people take the
humongous changes society and technology has gone through since 1776
completely for granted, and couldn't bear to live even a week in conditions
normal for those days -- yet cling to laws drawn up in that very same day
and age, unimaginably different from ours, like a limpet to a rock.
This reminds me of some thick broad appearing on TV, being condescending
about modern medicine and defending "alternative medicine" by referring
to "great medicinal wisdom, dating back 150 years or more". She (and the
interviewer) totally neglected to mention the fact that until some 150
years ago, medicine was mostly a dismal failure, and that only modern
medicine has rapidly increased both our life span and life quality.
> The USSR did not have patents you moRon, you wanna be a communist?
Ah yes ... say that the USPTO is doing an exceptionally lousy job, and
you're a communist. Heck, why not start about Hitler while we're at it?
> Stupid is as stupid does. We're now going to lern about innovation
> from a COmmie Spammer, yeah that's the ticket.
You preach innovation in technology, yet refuse to apply the same principle
to obsolete legislature and ditto organizations. Now I don't know what you
would call it, but the word "hypocrisy" somehow pops into my mind.