Overturn Patent Laws

[The Eagle]

You apparently have no idea how the real world works.

Now that's what I would call a good argument in favour of patents. What makes you think you have any idea how the 'real world' works?

Lots of patents != resting on your laurels and raking it in.

Quite a few of (predominantly US-based) companies (paten troll companies) are doing just that.

And why else do you need patents if it doen't allow you to rake money in?

That's the only purpose they exist for.

If you took away all of the patent protection then many companies and inventors would not be able to pay off their initial R&D spend. And on top of that, keeping up innovation to stay ahead requires an ongoing R&D spend as well - how do you finance that?

You claim that, but you aren't backing it up with any facts. In fact most R&D never ends up being patented and still takes place and brings plenty profits to companies.

[The Eagle]

no there wouldn't because nobody would do the research - whats the point if you are guaranteed to lose money??

modern medicine has exploded in the last 200 years primarily because of patents.

i work for a small medical company and we have a medical trial on going at the moment - without the patent system we wouldn't exist, there would be no point because nobody would invest in us.

sorry but that's complete rubbish.

Pharmaceutical research is limited by the very existence of patents to patentable substances, because due to the existence of patents these substances bring in the most money for the least effort.

Without patents, a lot more research would be put into phytopharmaceuticals which often are superior to their synthetic (but patentable) rip-offs.

[aardvark]

sorry but that's complete rubbish.

Pharmaceutical research is limited by the very existence of patents to patentable substances, because due to the existence of patents these substances bring in the most money for the least effort.

Without patents, a lot more research would be put into phytopharmaceuticals which often are superior to their synthetic (but patentable) rip-offs.

ok then, how would these companies get the money back from all the research they did to get a drug to market???

[Riedquat]

The myth of the garage-inventor is the only reason ever used to protect patent laws, and funnily enough it's used for that purpose mostly by corporations and powerful interests. In reality patent laws don't protect garage-inventors at all anymore (assuming they ever did) due to the high costs of obtaining and even more so defending a patent, therefore not only is the patent system flawed but the concept too.

No, you're still confusing the system with the concept. The garage inventor isn't a myth, although in reality it's more applicable to small businesses. The large corporations use the idea to make the opposite mistake to the one you're making (they probably know it's a mistake, they're just hoping to persuade people who don't spot it). They are using the concept to defend the system, where you're criticising the sytem to criticise the concept. Both positions treat the current flawed patent system as the only possible one.

[The Eagle]

ok then, how would these companies get the money back from all the research they did to get a drug to market???

Every company needs a viable business plan, so if these specific companies purely rely on patents to make a profit then they will have to adapt or fail.

This has nothing to do with the advancement of medicine, on the contrary, as I have said repeatedly now, patents limit medical research to patentable substances, while the absence of patents would remove this artificial and detrimental (to medical advancement) limit.

[The Eagle]

No, you're still confusing the system with the concept. The garage inventor isn't a myth, although in reality it's more applicable to small businesses. The large corporations use the idea to make the opposite mistake to the one you're making (they probably know it's a mistake, they're just hoping to persuade people who don't spot it). They are using the concept to defend the system, where you're criticising the sytem to criticise the concept. Both positions treat the current flawed patent system as the only possible one.

Ok, if you think there is an alternative to the current flawed system (other than getting rid of it as I advocate), then I'd very much welcome to hear about it.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

I am one of the developers of that software. Not just some minor contributor, but a core developer. I've written lots of software we all use (proof: you're here, reading this). I've also served as Invited Expert with the Worldwide Web Consortium in developing some of the standards that enable different Web technologies to interoperate. Some of what I've developed has been very innovative. Some is unique to this day.

Now we know why this site always crashes.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

sorry but that's complete rubbish.

Pharmaceutical research is limited by the very existence of patents to patentable substances, because due to the existence of patents these substances bring in the most money for the least effort.

Without patents, a lot more research would be put into phytopharmaceuticals which often are superior to their synthetic (but patentable) rip-offs.

Absolute tosh.

[aardvark]

Every company needs a viable business plan, so if these specific companies purely rely on patents to make a profit then they will have to adapt or fail.

This has nothing to do with the advancement of medicine, on the contrary, as I have said repeatedly now, patents limit medical research to patentable substances, while the absence of patents would remove this artificial and detrimental (to medical advancement) limit.

ok, so i invent a drug, spend 5 years and 10's of millions of pounds developing it and testing it and as soon as its approved another company comes in, steals my idea, and starts selling it having spent nothing. they make money for doing nothing and simply stealing, i cannot possibly make my money back without exclusivity and go out of business.

and you think this would be good for science or research???????????????????

[Injin]

ok, so i invent a drug, spend 5 years and 10's of millions of pounds developing it and testing it and as soon as its approved another company comes in, steals my idea, and starts selling it having spent nothing. they make money for doing nothing and simply stealing, i cannot possibly make my money back without exclusivity and go out of business.

and you think this would be good for science or research???????????????????

Perhaps you just want to cure some godawful disease.

Who can say?

[bogbrush]

I will not dispute your other points as I don't know about the issue.

However, as you are very much in favour of low tax for the rich, because we "need" them and genius must be incentivised,

why do you think that companies should invest in R&D only to have their products copied and genuinely clever and creative

people should be content to work for a pat on the back?

I'm not for low tax for some social engineering thing, it's just a view that you should be allowed to choose how you dispose of your earnings.

As for the point you're trying to make, the scientists themselves are no better rewarded than otherwise; it's the Corps that take the money.

So why do cheif executives have to be massively rewarded. Presumably because they have no passion, they just don't care about their jobs?

Because they mostly do it for money. They were unlikely to be CEO's a school, whereas scientists most probably enthusiastically did science at school.

[ken_ichikawa]

Perhaps you just want to cure some godawful disease.

Who can say?

Your position is contradictory. You say in hyperinflation paying people with worthless paper is all well and fine the difficulty being getting them to come back to work tomorrow or the day after that.

So how do you get people to come back tomorrow? You even say gold is worthless as it has no practical value, so how are people going to eat and make a living from researching your kind of thing?

In Injin world your idealism means you still haven't progressed past the stone age as there is no incentive to improve on stones as any improvements is quickly stolen by others. So neighbouring state of Ken Ichikawa world of greed and patents has invented the Maxim fast blow back machine gun. Ken world crosses the border and TAKES Injin world citizens into eternal slavery.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Your position is contradictory.

Welcome to injinworld. Don't forget to wipe your feet on the way in (but that's not an order).

[aardvark]

Perhaps you just want to cure some godawful disease.

Who can say?

and who will pay you to do it? how will you afford to eat?

altruistic billionaires? lol.

[bogbrush]

I think this answers tyhe concerns of anyone wondering whether we would have anything useful without patents;

http://www.epo.org/topics/innovation-and-economy/outstanding-inventors/pasteur.html

Check out the last paragraph;

Ever the man of action, Pasteur found many practical applications for his experiments, the most famous of which is the process of pasteurisation. Using heat, pasteurisation kills off germs and mould in liquids such as milk. Although he could have been a rich man, Pasteur did not choose to patent the process, staying with his credo that "knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world."

[Alan B'Stard MP]

and who will pay you to do it? how will you afford to eat?

altruistic billionaires? lol.

You print your own money stooopid.

[Injin]

and who will pay you to do it? how will you afford to eat?

altruistic billionaires? lol.

Billionaires get cancer, just like everyone else.

[bogbrush]

And if you think Louis Pasteur (see post #90) is a one-off.....

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blMarieCurie.htm

By the end of World War I, Marie Curie was probably the most famous woman in the world. She had made a conscious decision, however, not to patent methods of processing radium or its medical applications.

[Alan B'Stard MP]

And if you think he's a one-off.....

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blMarieCurie.htm

He's a she.

[Injin]

Your position is contradictory. You say in hyperinflation paying people with worthless paper is all well and fine the difficulty being getting them to come back to work tomorrow or the day after that.

So how do you get people to come back tomorrow? You even say gold is worthless as it has no practical value, so how are people going to eat and make a living from researching your kind of thing?

you give them something that they want.

In Injin world your idealism means you still haven't progressed past the stone age as there is no incentive to improve on stones as any improvements is quickly stolen by others. So neighbouring state of Ken Ichikawa world of greed and patents has invented the Maxim fast blow back machine gun. Ken world crosses the border and TAKES Injin world citizens into eternal slavery.

Hmm.

[bogbrush]

Oooh! Here's another one!

http://www.edinburgh-royalmile.com/famous-scots/alexander-fleming.html

Fleming, never attempted to patent his own discovery, believing it should be as cheap, plentiful and efficiacious as possible..

That's Louis pasteur, Marie Curie and Alexander Fleming found in 5 minutes. Does anyone think they contributed less than Glaxo?

[Alan B'Stard MP]

Oooh! Here's another one!

http://www.edinburgh-royalmile.com/famous-scots/alexander-fleming.html

That's Louis pasteur, Marie Curie and Alexander Fleming found in 5 minutes. Does anyone think they contributed less than Glaxo?

Anything more recent?

[bogbrush]

He's a she.

"he" was Louis Pasteur. A man.

[Injin]

Anything more recent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk

[Alan B'Stard MP]

"he" was Louis Pasteur. A man.

There some debate about that too.