On 2009-09-01, Richard Rasker <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>
>> 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.
It's a gross misrepresentation to call Patents in their current state
something that the Founding Fathers intended or approved of. The law has
been badly bent out of shape over the centuries and particularly over the
last few decades.
>
> 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
Actually, if you follow that sort of reasoning in an honest fashion then
you quickly come to the conclusion that "intellectual property" needs to be
reigned in rather than expanded. It's only the really sleazy types that try
to equate the current near-perpetual copyright with the intent of the Founding
Fathers.
> 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
There's something to be said for experience. All things have to be
treated with scientific rigor of course. My personal favority is a
frontier salve called Ichthamol. This can be handy for avoiding
infected instect bites and boils. The "modern approach" is ineffective,
painful and expensive.
[deletia]
When you invoke the ancestors, it helps to get the details right.
Also, sometimes they manage to be smarter than you thought. Good
ideas can stand the test of time. We tend to be smug in our "progress"
these days and I think some of that is a bit unwarranted.
--
...of course if you are forced against your will to use Windows in |||
the day time your bound to have a lot to vent about in the evening. / | \
|
|
