Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Study: Patents Reduce Innovation

RayLopez99 wrote:

> On Sep 2, 7:15Âam, Richard Rasker <spamt...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The downside is that legal action slows the spread of technology,
>> inhibits sharing and makes the rest of us pay a lot more for much of what
>> we buy."
> You stupid SOB.  You would not HAVE any sharing without patents
> outside the Linux world, because in the real world you DON'T SHARE
> unless you are PAID for it.

You can potty-mouth me all you like, but that doesn't lend any more truth to
what you're saying.

Until very recently, scientific development was freely shared, and the
reward for scientists involved were peer recognition, and perhaps some
international fame, and, very rarely, a Nobel prize. Even computer software
was freely shared for the first few decades.

Then greedy suits stepped in, and nowadays, scientific developments are
routinely patented, with detrimental effects to all of society. The
situation is actually quite cynical: we (the tax payers) pay professors and
universities to do research. Yet any significant outcome of that research
is not given back to society or freely shared, but patented (often using
tax money once again(*)), and absorbed into commercially motivated
organizations, after which that particular knowledge is locked up with that
organization for decades. Further research and development of the subject
usually comes grinding to a halt, as the patent is mostly used to bar
others from working on same, or else extort exuberant licensing fees.
And, of course, as soon as something is patented, students and scientists
are hindered barred from doing any more research in that field.

*: Patent applications are often subsidized, with the rationale that this
will make the university more private money, so that they'll need less tax
payers' money. What actually happens, is quite the opposite, as tax payers
end up paying orders of magnitude more for the same scientific research and
its results than when the subject matter would not have been patented.

Another factor contributing greatly to the whole mess is the vastly
increased scope of patents, both in subject matter (like the idiocy of
allowing patents on gene sequences) and vagueness (so that one little
patent can suddenly cause a cost increase of billions across several
branches of industry). But I gather that this is familiar enough, so I
won't elaborate any further on this.

> You stupid SOB.  You really thing that 
> everybody is a freetard like you?  You really do, don't you?  Without
> patents stuff would remain trade secret you stupid SOB.  Stupid Linux
> freetard.

No, because a) most things that are patented nowadays are so obvious that
they would have been "invented" regardless, and b) there are smart people
out there who can figure out how something works by examining it. It's
called "reverse engineering".

>> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/outdated-intellectual-...
>> In other words: instead of benefiting companies in particular and society
>> as a whole, patents are a net cash drain to both. And the only ones
>> laughing all the way to the bank are the lawyers -- the same class of
>> people who are in no small part responsible for this situation.
>> Now I wonder what the U.S. Founding Fathers would have to say about this
>> ...
> Most of them were lawyers, so I would imagine they would be amused.

They would have been amused at the utter stupidity and greed of people,
allowing a mere handful of men in suits to claim an ever bigger slice of
the world of human thought and imagination as their "intellectual
property" -- while those same men in suits couldn't "invent" their way out
of a wet cardboard box even if their life depended on it.

> And 'theglobeandmail' is but one step removed from the "National
> Enquirer", a sleezy tabloid.

So Boston University law professors James Bessen and Michael Meurer and
their scientific publications are somehow lumped in with "sleezy gutter
press"? I bet they would be rather surprised to hear ...

> Netherlands.  Stupid country.  At one time they were innovators, 400
> years ago, but they got fat and lazy and lost a war to England and
> reverted to being dumb socialists that they remain to this day.
> Figures you're from that country, which is technically below sea level
> and should just sink below the north sea and be done with it.

Yet we appear to be smart enough to have kept dry feet for the past 50
years, in spite of living below sea level for a large part -- something a
lot of Americans along the Mississippi (and one American city in
particular) can't say, in spite of all your patents and "intellectual
property". I even believe that the US asked us for help to prevent such
disasters in the future. Which we are willing to provide, of course. With
no patents, no strings attached, just pay us for the job, thank you very

Richard Rasker

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index