From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 16:20:13 MST
Peter C. McCluskey wrote:
> hal@finney.org (Hal Finney) writes:
>
>
>>...
>>before it was economically ripe to do so. They would live on the land
>>at a loss for a number of years in the expectation that as civilization
>>developed in the area, the land would eventually become valuable.
>>But all those years of losses were wasted economic effort ...
>>
> This is well understood as a theory, but is there much evidence that it
>has happened with land? De Soto (in The Mystery of Capitalism) claims...
>
The real problem with this argument is that it assumes that the people
who lived on the land didn't like things just the way they were.
Contemporary accounts imply that frequently the early occupiers of the
land were quite disgusted when a (relatively) dense population center
appeared around them. (Even if it was clearly their fault.)
>>Patents might see some of the same problem - people rush to get patents
>>even when they don't make that much economic sense. The limited term
>>of patents will help to avoid waste, but some still does occur.
>>
>>
> This might be a problem in a few areas, such as patents on genes, but
>it's hard to see signs that this is a widespread problem.
>
It's a genuine problem because the traditional limitations on what can
be patented are ignored in technical areas. If someone patents all
genes beginning with codon xxx, then this causes unreasonable injury to
all other companies that might have competed. (This is, I think, a
slight exaggeration of the kinds of patents that are currently being
issued. But not by much.)
>>I think another of the big problems with patents is that most are not well
>>managed. The transaction costs to negotiate a license are extremely high.
>>
Do you think this is by accident? It tends to eliminate anyone who
doesn't have a full time lawyer, at next to no cost to those who do.
>>H...
>>
> This is a much bigger problem. I think many of the problems are inherent
>in negotiations involving a monopoly, unless there are a large number of
>
Monopoly is the key point here. The number of customers is nearly
irrelevant. "Being a monopoly means not having to say you're sorry."
(That's a quote from a phone company official in the pre-breakup days.)
>....
>
The thing is, the government is unhappy with the current rate of
innovation. Patents are one of the techniques that they are using to
slow it down. This may be good or bad, but I find it hard to doubt that
it's happening. Of course, I'm a programmer. People working in areas
with higher costs of entry might quite reasonably have a different
perspective. But I haven't heard any huzzah's coming from either the
nano-tech people or the biologists, except for those in companies that
have "won the lottery". And then not from the technologists.
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 16:27:35 MST