| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Film: "Patent absurdity"Film: "Patent absurdity"Posted Apr 21, 2010 14:12 UTC (Wed) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942)In reply to: Film: "Patent absurdity" by dlang Parent article: Film: "Patent absurdity"
> Hyundai developed a new engine design that gave them twice the power and MPG of existing engines for the same cost, weight and size. Don't you think that they should be able to license the design rather than just have it copied by Mercedes?
If it would be possible, then most car companies would create such engine on its own. Inventions are not coming out of nowhere, they are based on past ideas. So it is possible for other people to come up with them. And if two persons would invent the same thing why do we want to award one who invented a month earlier?
The real value of the inventions is when they come into life as a product. Patents just slow down that since after getting a patent there is no insensitive to bring the invention into the world quickly as the company can just sit on the patent while deciding on a marketing plan.
(Log in to post comments)
Film: "Patent absurdity" Posted Apr 21, 2010 17:35 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
quote: Inventions are not coming out of nowhere, they are based on past ideas. So it is possible for other people to come up with them.
I think this is the core of the dispute.
if you believe that the idea will come to someone else at about the same time then patents are major harm.
however if you think that there are ideas that will not come to many people around the same time, then patents can be a good thing as they get those ideas to everyone at the expiration of the patent instead of having to wait for someone else to come up with the idea.
If you do not believe that ideas can be rare, then there is no reason to respect or honor anyone who has ever had an idea, because they will just be one of a flood of people with that same idea.
note that this would have to include Einstein, Darwin, Newton and all the 'great' figures in science and math as well.
I believe that there are ideas that are very rare.
There are too many cases where someone has noticed something (frequently the result of an accident of some sort) and pursued it to find something worthwhile.
Film: "Patent absurdity" Posted Apr 24, 2010 14:31 UTC (Sat) by anton (guest, #25547) [Link] If you do not believe that ideas can be rare, then there is no reason to respect or honor anyone who has ever had an idea, because they will just be one of a flood of people with that same idea.Science and math is not patentable, not even in the USA. And the research done by these people was done without having an "incentive" from a monopoly (what would that incentive be for science, actually?). Maybe if you want to have an incentive for inventors, you could look at the incentives there are for scientists; maybe such incentives should be there for inventors, too. But we will never see this happen, because then the big corporations who profit from patents could no longer argue that the patents are needed for the small inventor.
Film: "Patent absurdity" Posted Apr 26, 2010 13:31 UTC (Mon) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>Science and math is not patentable, not even in the USA
Penrose tiling?
|
|
||||||||||||