Inventing the Telephone, Independently 203
An anonymous reader writes "There is a nice article about the history of the telephone at AmericanHeritage.com. Most of us know that Alexander Bell beat Elisha Gray to the patent office by mere hours to claim credit for the invention of the telephone, but did you know that two other inventors can also claim the invention, including Thomas Edison? Similar disputes about independent invention and patent ownership can be found regarding the television, the airplane, and the automobile. Maybe it really is true: the economic benefit of encouraging patents is like that of encouraging window breaking."
Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
By taking a situation where there exists "plenty" and using legal fictions to create scarcity, they are clearly destroying wealth.
and like Calculus (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you place the threshhold high enough, patents (esp. for a limited duration and done right) can be very much warranted and beneficial.
Re:and like Calculus (Score:5, Interesting)
One obvious effect would be that you could license it from whichever inventor with whome you could come to the best agreement.
I certainly can't see any logical reason why anyone who invented something independently of another should be deprived of the fruits of their own effort.
Still badly broken. (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what it would be like if everyone who invented the same device could receive their own patents as long as their applications were filed before any were published.
But this still cuts out all those who legitimately develop something obvious after it has been patented. What is obvious to one person may not be obvious to a patent examiner. Just because it was not obvious to a patent examiner does not mean it would not have been obvious to any number of others who are at the top of their fields and
Re:Still badly broken. (Score:2)
See this [bartsplace.net] discussion for some more information.
Re:and like Calculus (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if you keep your invention perfectly secret before the patent is granted and published, corrupt patent examiners would be a problem.
Should fail the test for obvious in this case (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I think that in cases like this, that NOBODY should be awarded a patent.
Although the current practice is to award a patent to whoever applies first, I think that the fact that subsequent, substantially similar, patents are applied for before the first one is made public or awarded should be considered a prima facie evidence that the invention is 'obvious'.
Seriously. I understand that obviousness is a slippery thing. Often, the best ideas are the simplest and may seem obvious in retrospect, so the patent office and courts are fairly careful about determining obviousness. However, if two or more inventers independently come up with the same idea at about the same time, then that should be considered proof that the idea was obvious. Since the patent office keeps filings secret until after a patent is awarded, the time between the original filing and the awarding of a patent for the idea is a time when no other inventor could know that a similar idea has been filed. So, another, similar, filing during this period aught to be considered proof that the idea is obvious and non patentable.
A large number of patents would get thrown out if this standard was adopted, but, since it's clear that there is a serious problem with the patent system, I don't think that this would be a bad thing and would actually provide us with a much better system.
Re:and like Calculus (Score:2)
It is impossible to have such a definition. But such objectiveness is not needed if they get away from the idea that inventors are entitled to patents. Patents need to be seen as a privilege and not a right, because a patent restricts the rights of millions of other people to do what they want with their own property.
I think there s
Re:and like Calculus (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that before a patent is awarded (and a short time thereafter), there is no property for other people to lament the restrictions applied to?
"But such objectiveness is not needed if they get away from the idea that inventors are entitled to patents."
So you believe an inventor should invest their time/money/talent into something and just sit and hope they can make money
Re:and like Calculus (Score:2)
The property -- namely the hands, minds, tools, and materials owned by other people -- exists before the patents come along telling them what they cannot do with it. A patent is telling me what I CANNOT do with my own hands and hammer and metal and wood and chemicals.
"So you believe an inventor should invest their time/money/talent into something and ju
Re:and like Calculus (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that a competing inventor being an hour late at the patent office will agree with your argument...
Also, as someone else mentioned already, my brain, hands and tools aremine, that property already exists. Patents limit what I can do with those.
So you believe an inventor should invest their time/money/talent into something and just sit and hope they
Re:and like Calculus (Score:2)
Thomas Jefferson was agaist patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thomas Jefferson was agaist patents (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Thomas Jefferson was agaist patents (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thomas Jefferson was agaist patents? (Score:3, Informative)
According to Article I, sec. 8 of the US Constitution patents are supposed to promote the progress of science.
Doesn't follow (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it really is true: the economic benefit of encouraging patents is like that of encouraging window breaking.
That doesn't follow from the fact that inventions are often independently reinvented. Inventions are so often independently reinvented because new inventions depend at least as much on having all of the supporting technologies and ideas in place as they do on the cleverness of the inventor. Once the prerequisites are in place, it's not surprising that several bright people will simultaneously hit on the way to put them together. However, it's still possible that without the knowledge that patents will allow them to protect the results of their success, inventors might not be *motivated* to create their inventions.
It's equally possible that the existence of patents doesn't provide any incentive to potential inventors. I think the truth is somewhere in between, but the main point is that the frequency of multiple independent invention doesn't really say anything one way or the other about the efficacy of patents as motivators for creating and publishing new ideas.
To elaborate slightly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
Care to provide any kind of proof that patents have anything to do with this whatsoever?
Without that encouragement, perhaps none of them would have worked on the telephone and it might not have happened until much later.
Perhaps, most likely, there would be a zillion other incentives to still invent those things.
People have been inventing stu
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
But I do know that the rate of inventions increased dramatically in the past couple of hundred years. The United States was a dramatic mover in technology from its inception as a country. Perhaps it's a coincidence that the US also had a strong notion of patents (inherited from England, another patent-awarding country and producer of many of the Industrial Revolu
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
I won't and that wasn't the point of my post really.
But I do know that the rate of inventions increased dramatically in the past couple of hundred years. The United States was a dramatic mover in technology from its inception as a country. Perhaps it's a coincidence that the US also had a strong notion of patents (inherited from England, another patent-awarding co
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:3, Informative)
Innovation is based on all invention that came before. Therefore I would expect innovation to grow at an increasing non-linear (exponential or logarithmic?) rate.
Innovation 'expenditures' (time&money) are pulled from leisure time. In other words: We won't spend our time inventing before we hunt and gather food. So while the previous million years people spent the bulk of their day just trying to survi
A Bit o' History (Score:2)
For example, those countries with the 'weakest' patent systems have often shown more innovation than those with 'strong'. This is particularly true of Switzerland and drug patents [blogspot.com], and even of Germany (compared to the US and Britain prior to the 1970s).
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
Do you think that a pharmaceutical company would drop a billion dollars pushing a drug from discovery, to lab testing, to FDA approval if they were not guaranteed at least a few years to sell the drug without someone copying them for pocket change and under cutting them before they can turn a profit?
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, there may be some very very specific areas where patents make sense, but that doesn't mean that every field of technology or every inmvention has to be bothered by it really.
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
I'm sure mr. Farnsworth agrees with you....
You see, as long as you do this development in secret, you can come to market with your product before your competition has the slightest clue about your invention.
Obtaining a patent however means publishing your invention, and enables those with much bigger pockets to ignore or fight your patent untill it becomes irrelevant.
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
"Do you think that a pharmaceutical company would drop a billion dollars pushing a drug from discovery, to lab testing, to FDA approval if they were not guaranteed at least a few years to sell the drug without someone copying them for pocket change and under cutting them before they can turn a profit?"
A very qualified no. Since without patents there may not be quite so many billions to be made in producing a drug; phar
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all. I asked for showing cause and effect.
The factual record is that there was more economic growth in 100 years than there was in the previous 1000. Patents were a key component of that. You can hypothesize that it would have happened without the modern patent system, but the fact is that it didn't.
See this post [slashdot.org]
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
For the vast majority of inventions, I really doubt that patents made any difference at all.
How many inventors would quit inventing if the patent system was substantially cut back? How many companies would shut down their R&D departments?
I think that there would probably be cutbacks in the few industries where the cost of the R&D is so high that the onl
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
The factual record is that there was more economic growth in 100 years than there was in the previous 1000. Airplanes were a key component of that. You can hypothesize that it would have happened without the modern Airplane system, but the fact is tha
Re:To elaborate slightly (Score:2)
That is an assumption, not a proven fact.
Also, investment != speed of invention. It has a relation, but if you believe that throwing money at a problem is enough to invent a solution, I suggest you go look into the invention of television. It is a simplistic way of looking at things that ignores reality in quite some cases.
You can have companies spend millions or even billions of dollars to get new technology out
more fuel (Score:2)
Re:more fuel (Score:2)
Thanks for the interesting read.
Re:Doesn't follow (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't follow (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't follow (Score:3, Interesting)
What it does say is that most inventions do not take unique capabilities or unique ideas, and that the temporary economic monopoly in quite a few cases gets
Re:Doesn't follow (Score:2)
Instead of asking if patents are single incentive for inventors and thus is crucial - perhaps this article should have us asking - do patents hurt inventors and despite them, we, as a society, get things done? After all, there was Ale
Re:Doesn't follow (Score:2)
There are some advantages to the function of patents, and this is the one that stands out as the greatest advantage.
But the dilemma is a false one, we're not faced with a choice between monopoly or secrecey. There are many other ways we could accomplish the same thing; for example, we could scrap the monopoly part of patents and instead let the patent office hand out the money directly. That way the conflict
Re:Doesn't follow (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see the benefit of awarding patents to everything. Perhaps there should be just a limited number of patents awarded a year. Pick the top 1000 or something.
Or the top 1000 get 20 year protection, the next 10,000 get only 10 years. and the rest get 3 years
Re:Doesn't follow (Score:2)
Elisha Gray (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Elisha Gray (Score:2)
Impressive.
You can have too much of a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You can have too much of a good thing (Score:2)
Maybe they're beating them down to promote invention, maybe they're beating them down to destroy invention, maybe
Re:You can have too much of a good thing (Score:2)
Re:You can have too much of a good thing (Score:2)
Re:You can have too much of a good thing (Score:2)
Personally my main problem with patents is that they all last 17 years. The patent reviewer should instead estimate the time until he would expect an independent rediscovery if the invention was hypothetically kept secret. Just a rough estimate is ok: "would this be reinvented in 1 month, 1 year, 10 years, or only in 50 years?". This would be a fair duration for protection.
Another new rule is that inventions that can be kept as trade secrets can'
Re:You can have too much of a good thing (Score:2)
And of course, the "tricorder", "communicator", and "non-invasive medical scanner bed" are all obviously things we weren't likely to spontaniously invent until the 23rd century without some incredible act of genius, so the basic cell phone patents, PET scan patents and such should 'fairly' be protected for at least another 200 years. There were plenty of wel
Re:You can have too much of a good thing (Score:2)
Our patents expire in 20 years. At which point you may feel free to expand the patented ideas any way you like and advance the state of patent reform. Thank god for patents speeding this process along!
Patents good? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it need not, for patents to be a net disadvantage.
After all, the patent system was created to reduce trade secrecy and and encourage invention, and it certainly does that, however imperfectly.
I'm not sure about that.
At the research facility where I worked before the current one that I'm working at, important inventions that really provided an edge over the competition was always kept a trade secret? Why? Because everyone in the industry cross-licensed with each other, because otherwise nobody could actually build anything. Patenting something was just giving it to the competition. Patents were reserved for less useful things.
The net effect was to keep anyone new from entering the market. Patents don't have to all be perfect -- if there are two hundred patents held by incumbents waiting to attack anyone wanting to enter the market, most of the patents can be thrown out and the newcomer is still going to have a hard time entering the market.
reason? (Score:2)
While I wasn't there when patents were first debated and granted, I'm not sure that that was the real reason. oh, I'm not saying that wasn't in the glossy, but I just don't think that it was the real reason.
The real reason, as it always is, is money. If I could get a law passed that guaranteed my income (by way of eliminating competition) without further effort I'd
Re:You can have too much of a good thing (Score:2)
Not at all.
The patent system in its original incarnation predates the USA by many centuries and was created to give the king control over inventions and their use.
The idea was reused for other purposes (promoting invention), but that is from a much more recent time, and one can seriously debate how well this works (I'm not suggesting it never works, but I am saying th
In 100 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In 100 years (Score:2)
Duh! Everyone knows Steve Jobs invented the light bulb
Re:In 100 years (Score:2)
Re:In 100 years (Score:5, Informative)
shows:
"Since I expected the greatest effect from a discharge associated with incandescence, I inserted in the circuit a very fine platinum wire above the place where the needle was located."
In other words, a current through a thin wire made electric light.
Not very practical though, only known power source was galvanic batteries (Which quickly ran down), and needed expensive platinum wire to keep the filament from melting or burning up right away.
The obvious solution was to encase a cheaper filament in a vaccum (ie: bulb), but good vaccums were difficult to achieve, and good filaments were also a problem at the time. They needed to be cheap, very thin, mechanically strong, electrically conductive, (but not too much) and with stand high temprature, not an easy combo to come by.
After some twenty years of research, English physicist and electrician, Sir Joseph Wilson Swan successfully demonstrated a true incandescent bulb in 1878 (a year earlier than Edison) http://www.maxmon.com/1878ad.htm [maxmon.com]
Not that they were the only two working on it, just the first two to produce a practical version that got public attention. (As I recall, a German and a Canadian also demonstrated similar lights at about the same time, but I can't remember their names.) }:-P
Re:In 100 years (Score:2)
Re:In 100 years (Score:2)
Thw problem isn't simply that of the light bulb.
The problem is to engineer all the component parts of a commercially viable system: Power plants, distribution networks. If power is to be sold, its usage has to be metered. To reduce the risk of fire and electrocution, you need standards for household wiring, switches, fuses, etc.
It takes a certain genius, organization, talent, money and discipline to fit all the pieces together. That is why men like Bell and Edison are remebere
The Modern Era... (Score:5, Funny)
Alexander Bell did not invent the telephone either (Score:4, Informative)
Philipp Reis' version of the telephone is from 1860.
Antonio Meucci's version of the telephone is from 1854.
Meucci's version is not really the invention of
the phone either, the principle probably was discovered
by Page in 1837, but Meucci *did* file for a US
patent, which he did not get simply because he
ran out of funds.
So in 1876 there was a rush to get a patent
on the phone, where four guys competed, none
of whom was anywhere close to being the
original inventor of the phone.
Thomas
No arguments anymore - Meucci is the man (Score:3, Informative)
I have a feeling that Meucci's mental problems and personal life problems delayed the original patent, but that there is little doubt now that he actually invented the telephone.
It's almost certain that Bell stole the patent for the telephone with a little help from Edward B Grant at Western Union (who kept putting off Meucci's attempts to give a demonstration) and certain individuals at the Patent Office who coincidentally 'lost' Meucci's paperwork. Far from being innovitive, Bell was nothing more than
Re:Alexander Bell did not invent the telephone eit (Score:2)
Philipp Reis invented the name 'telephon' (1863). He died in 1874, so he had no chance to battle A.G.Bell in court.
Re:Alexander Bell did not invent the telephone eit (Score:2)
Re:Alexander Bell did not invent the telephone eit (Score:2)
Re:Alexander Bell did not invent the telephone eit (Score:2)
Obligatory Firesign Theatre quote (Score:2)
--
BMO
P.S. - it's disturbing how "Everything You Know Is Wrong" is so similar to late-night talk radio these days.
Bridges, Software, Copyright, Patents and Open So (Score:3, Insightful)
Bridges come in all shapes and sizes, from the 4,200 ft span of the Golden Gate to the pipes under the road at the top end of Sandy Creek. If anything software is even more diverse, from programs with tens of millions of lines of code down to simple routines of a line or two to automate some mundane task.
Constructing a bridge costs, as does developing software. The vast majority of bridges are public property. They have been funded and built by such a large pool of people - government's of one form or another - for the common good, for use by anyone at anytime. However there is a substantial pool of private bridges. Most of these are bridges built for specific non standard vehicles such as trains. Others are built for the conveyance of standard vehicles but tolls are charged for a variety of reasons.
Starting from the precept "We are human, we can do anything and get to anywhere we want", a toll bridge must provide a cheaper and/or quicker alternative to other ways of getting from A to B. To invest in the toll bridge its constructor determines that he can charge a particular toll, at that toll he will get a particular amount of traffic and that this income will repay the cost of building the bridge. The constructor needs to satisfy themselves about the surety of the factors that affect the bridge usage. They minimize their risk by identifying as many factors that will adversely affect bridge traffic as possible and blocking these adverse factors where possible.
Where huge bridges are required, the Golden Gate, Sydney Harbour and the like, tolls can be seen to be fair without imposing monopoly conditions on the general populace. No conditions need imposing on ferry services, no conditions need imposing blocking alternate routes, the bridge operates in a standard competitive environment because it is so obviously a beneficial object.
On less obviously beneficial bridges the actions of people are substantial factors that affect the financial viability of the bridge. Controlling these actions is a form of monopoly rights granted by the relevant government(s). These rights include: restricting other river crossings; guarantees of road construction to ensure their bridge is the prime route over the river; concessions that the investors have the sole rights to offer peripheral services, service centres offering fuel and food etc. These rights are generally granted for a limited time and the bridge often reverts to public ownership at the expiration of this time.
This model is open to abuse. The rights granted may be disproportionate to the benefits. A bridge may be built over a small creek for little cost and the constructor granted a perpetual ban on any other bridges being built 20 miles in either direction. Or the government may agree that other routes will be closed or allowed to degrade, or they may put restrictions on other services, or they may allow the operator to insist that users of the bridge utilize other services before they can use the bridge etc. etc.
Transferring this view of bridges to intellectual property one would have to conclude that there are no Golden Gates or Sydney Harbour's. Every method developed has alternatives that can be simply developed and deployed. Intellectual property monopoly rights can only be related to the pipes under the headwaters of Sandy Creek with a guaranteed monopolies 20 miles in either direction. They are completely out of proportion with the benefits these pipes offer.
In fact the situation is worse than this. A better metaphor is monopoly rights to a pipe under a train line. The pipe owners charge not only a toll for using the bridge but force you to load your car onto their railway carriage and force you to utilize their passenger service for the 200 yard journey over the Sandy Creek floodplain. The alternative is to drive an extra 50 miles through the mountains because they have monopoly veto rights over any road bridges over Sandy Creek.
Another alternative, that can be likened to op
Well, patents ARE a government approved monopoly (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents prevent a true free market for ideas, and yet, in our current system, the value of the ideas are controlled by the patent holder. The system of patents need to change, to include things like price controls of the ideas, or to allow multiple patent holders if developed independently.
Patent = monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
Newsflash: Patents = monopolies
A patent is a monopoly on a technology. The patent office is a government institution that hands out several thousand monopolies each year. Most of these monopolies are awarded to foreign corporations.
Why would someone who believes in market economy and free competition support the government handing out monopolies?
How can handing out monopolies to corporations increase competition in the market place?
Why is Microsoft, a convicted monopolist, applying for, and getting a large number of legal monopolies? Why does the government sue MS for abusing their monopoly, and then give them thousands of legally enforcable monopolies?
Re:Patent = monopoly (Score:2)
Why would someone who believes in market economy and free competition support the government handing out monopolies?
No matter how big or skillful a company is, someone else will one up you.
Say I design the holy grail of automotive technology. I spend years researching optimal mix ratios, air flow diagrams, doing computer modelling to increase burn efficiency. End result, it doubles the mileage of your average gas guzzler.
Now, wi
Re:Patent = monopoly (Score:2)
There's some false logic in there.
First of all, even with a patent there
Patenter VS Inventor, it is a question of fame (Score:3, Insightful)
What is amazing is the fact the two names quoted in the original post are Bell and Gray : The person who tried to patent the idea.
Re:Patenter VS Inventor, it is a question of fame (Score:2)
Bell's research like the Wrights" is well-documented.
He came to the problem because of an initial interest in the multiplex telegraph and with the imagination to make the connection between his work with the deaf and the possibility of the telephone.
Congress is always willing to throw a bone to the ethnic vote. These resolutions are passed and forgotten without a second thought.
I wouldn't say that (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I'm chasing an impossible dream, but I have to wonder if there's a better way to provide a strong incentive to create ideas and other information other than by placing artificial restrictions on the availability and use of that information. I've got no ideas here.
fundamental problem with no perfect solution (Score:2)
Information, especially in today's Internet age, has a distribution cost of close to 0. The cost of giving information to 1 additional person (marginal cost) is close to 0 and therefore the economically efficient price is close to 0. To efficiently distribute CURRENTLY KNOWN information, the price should be close to 0.
BUT, if the price for all information were 0,
Who Did invent the TV? (Score:5, Insightful)
The link to the "inventor" of the tv fails to completely mention John Logie Baird.
This very eccentric scotsman was a pioneer in TV development. There is still to this day a great debate amongst historians about who was first.
http://www.infed.org/walking/wa-baird.htm [infed.org]
The first TV pictures he sent were down a phone line!
At least the place where the worlds first TV station broadcast from is still standing and is a great monument to those involved.
Re:Who Did invent the TV? (Score:3, Informative)
Baird stuck with mechanical scanning and display well into the thirties, long after the superiority of a pure electronic system had been demonstrated.
Multiple standards (Score:2)
We all complain about the battle for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, all those memory card standards, all number of things. Patents ARE like breaking windows; in such a free market it encourages thousands of "patent-avoiding" inventions. Companies (and inventors) would rather have their o
Article displays bad logic (Score:2, Troll)
(1) SOME patents are bad patents (they patent obvious and/or previously innovated ideas)
(2) Therefore ALL patents are bad and our society shouldn't have patents
(1) is true. (2) is false. (2) does not follow from (1). The hostility to IP on slashdot really amazes me, especially considering all the stuff we would not have if it were not for patents:
AIDs drugs would never have been developed if
But the very requirement that it be high-priced (Score:2)
But the very requirement that it be high-priced and obscenely profitable warps the development to an extreme degree at various levels, both in the value of the drug to the masses who cannot afford it, after such huge moneys were spent on it that might have been spent on a more-rational approach if one of the requirements had not been developing something so different from traditional approaches that no one else would be allowed to copy it when it was completed.
People might make the same argument about an o
Basically... (Score:2, Informative)
Broken window qft (Score:3, Informative)
source [jim.com]
No TV dispute (Score:3, Informative)
Most of the abuses of the patent system would simply disappear if only individuals could own patents - instead of companies.
Parallel inventions are only natural (Score:2)
This may of course suggest that many "inventions" are nowhere near as unrelated as their "inventors" might (quite honestly) wish to believe - which calls for restraint in strengthening the patent system without clear evidence of its benefits.
Sir William G. Armstrong, president of the British Association [the-ba.net]
There are many mysterious things about the mind (Score:2)
However, where most inventions come from doesn't seem at all mysterious to me. The only really surprising thing in the whole lineage of the telephone is the inventions of the idea of an electrical circuit. That was a stroke of genius.
After the ciruit was invented, it seems to me it was only a matter of time before somebody invented the doorbell, which in turn begat the telegraph which in turn begat the telephone which in turn begat radio.
Along the wa
Edison (Score:2)
grain transmitter. Perhaps this is the reference to Edison
inventing the telephone. Edision also missed something else,
though it might have been obvious in hindsight, it would have
been hard to see at the time.
The telephone in Edison's time was limited in range. At the
time he improved the telephone transmitter there was still the
problem of long distance phone circuits, too much power
lost in the wires. A way to recover the lost signal was needed.
Induction
Re:...aha! (Score:2)
Re:The parable of the broken window (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, people who "hoard" money also help the economy (well, today they do, since ba
Re:The parable of the broken window (Score:2)
And even if someone buries their money in a box it benefits society, because when the money supply decreases everyone else's purchasing power increases.
Re:The parable of the broken window (Score:2)
But everyone's car will be better. If the first link in the chain had junked his car instead of selling it, the second link might not have been able to afford a car upgrade, thus resulting in the rest of society not benefitting.
Wouldn't it be better for the economy to encourage manufacturers to make cars that last longe
Yeah, we could all work much less (Score:2, Insightful)
Every hour of overtime you put in is an hour somebody else could have been paid to work.
And if everyone were working 20, maybe 30 hours a week, there would be sufficient product for all. And we'd all have more time for taking care of our health, our relationships with family and friends, and other really important things.
Re:Patents are violent (Score:3, Informative)
That simply isn't true. There are issues wi
Re:Patents are violent (Score:2)
Pharmaceutical research would pretty much grind to a halt without IP laws. It can take up to a billion dollars to push a single drug from discovery, to lab testing, past regulation, and into production. No one is going to drop a billion dollars just to have their closest competitor copy what they just achieved at not cost to themselves. It simply would not happen.
Actually the facts show that just the opposite happens. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/ip.ch.9.m100 4 .pdf [ucla.edu] Both Germany and then later I
Re:Patents are violent (Score:2)
Easy to say in so trite a manner. Please explain these "slight" changes, why they are needed and how the pharm industry can accomplish the shift and still be productive. Please be succint.
In other words, you're bullshitting.
Re:Patents are violent (Score:2)
Re:Patents are violent (Score:2)
You may have failed to notice that Switserland has quite a name in development of drugs and such, and at least till recently had a rather weak patent system.
Re:Patents are violent (Score:2)
Yes IP is a farce designed to restrict the flow of knowledge. It only spurs hoarding and speculation for the benefit of very few people.
Copyrights are designed to restrict the flow of knowledge, patents are designed to restrict it's application. That's why patents are soo dangerous - you can't stop information with a tank, but you can stop it's application. Patnets brought to their logical conclusion will result in nothing but violence. For history we can look at the plantation era and the emergence