From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:07:00 MST
> > First .. Patents reduce freedom.
>
> Interesting thesis. Wonder what it means. Seems to me imperfectly
> formed.
It's really a simple matter of definition: a patent is a piece of
paper that says "Person A is free to develop idea X into products, or
not, as he chooses; all other persons are forbidden to do that for a
period of time." So if I think I can make someone's idea into a
useful product or service better than he can, I am forced by law to
negotiate with the inventor for a license; if he wants more money
for the license than would make my use profitable, or if he simply
refuses to license it at all, then my idea just doesn't happen, even
if it would have been in everyone's economic interest.
> > Without patents, innovation will still be
> > rewarded /when it fulfils a demand/, but not otherwise, which
> > is how it should be.
>
> The problem is that demand for a finished product that may take
> years to develop and that may have to go through FDA approval
> processes etc is real but distant at the R&D stage.
This is the best argument in favor of patents: without them,
long-term speculative R&D is not feasible. The question then
becomes, do we really need long-term speculative R&D? Do we
really want the kinds of things that are invented in secret labs
over many years, or can we achieve the same results by gradual
refinement and evolution of existing things? Obviously,
evolutionary processes /can/ lead to complex, robust systems.
But designed systems are generally more efficient and powerful.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 10 2003 - 12:12:00 MST