Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

[theodp]

While Mainframe and Unix users are unlikely to find it novel that
Windows XP allows several family members to share a PC while enabling
each to have personalized settings and folders, that's not stopping
Microsoft from seeking a patent for 'Methods and arrangements for
providing multiple concurrent desktops and workspaces in a shared
computing environment,' the USPTO disclosed Thursday.

--> Link to Microsoft's Patent Application

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20040088709

[Barry Margolin]

In article <29********************************@4ax.com>,
pltrgyst <pl********@SPAMxhost.org> wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2004 14:26:26 GMT, Just Another Alias <st********@comcast.net>
wrote:

.... Because the opportunity
exists for a temporary monopoly, the patent process CAUSES things to
be invented that would not have been invented.
Care to explain that magical process?

The "magic" mostly occurs in industries where there's a significant
investment required during the invention process. If the inventor
doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup that investment,
he may give up on the development, and the same decision is likely to be
made by all the competing inventors. The end result would be that no
one invents it, and society is poorer as a result.
Many of the great inventions and discoveries of mankind ocurred nearly
simultaneously in different parts of the world. Many of today's technological
advances are made independently by multiple inventors.
But there's often a "race" to be the first one to succeed and patent the
result, because of the advantage that provides. If the patent system
didn't exist, they might not bother entering the race in the first
place, since success wouldn't provide the hoped-for reward.

Many people jog for fun, but they don't usually run as fast as they can
unless there's some kind of reward, like a gold medal (or they're being
chased). The carrot on the stick is a useful encouragement in many
areas of life.
It seesm pretty arbitrary that patent protection is available
according to different criteria depending on where the patent is
sought: either first to file, or first to invent.

The fine details of many laws are often somewhat arbitrary. "First to
invent" may be fairer, but it raises the problem of proving priority
(the inventor can write any date on his lab notebook), while "first to
file" is very easy to judge -- the patent office knows when they
received the forms.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA

[Barry Pearson]

Barry Margolin wrote:
[snip]

The "magic" mostly occurs in industries where there's a significant
investment required during the invention process. If the inventor
doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup that
investment, he may give up on the development, and the same decision
is likely to be made by all the competing inventors. The end result
would be that no one invents it, and society is poorer as a result.

[snip]

I think the pharmaceutical industry is the classic case. They spend
gob-smacking amounts on trying to make the next life-saving drug. The vast
majority of attempts fail in trials. The cost of satisfying government
agencies is huge. And, by the time they have got through the process, there
are only a few years left on the patent, in which to try to get their money
back! Then it becomes "generic", and everyone can make & sell it.

Change a few details about patent law, and they would make more money if they
just stuck what they had in a bank, fired all their researchers, and just
claimed the interest! (And let people die).

But I know, from decades in IT R&D, that similar investments can occur there
too. And it applies to software as well as hardware. (Anyone who hasn't lived
through it may not have a clue).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Barry Margolin]

In article <FI7oc.362$wB.125@newsfe1-win>,
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

But I know, from decades in IT R&D, that similar investments can occur there
too. And it applies to software as well as hardware. (Anyone who hasn't lived
through it may not have a clue).

I agree. The reason that software patents seem like such a problem is
because the law is extremely general. There's nothing in the patent
system that says that you can only get a patent for something that costs
alot to develop. The majority of software development doesn't have the
costs of the pharmaceutical or manufacturing industries, but the output
of these processes are just as eligible for patents. We have to worry
about throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we totally disallow
software patents.

But there also seems to be a problem with the patent examiners allowing
many software patents for techniques that many of us would consider
obvious. For instance, in the early days of raster graphics, someone
patented the technique of displaying a mouse cursor or rubber-band line
using XOR, even though this was something just about every graphics
programmer figured out how to do on their own (I remember "inventing" it
when I was still in high school 25 years ago, fooling around with TRS-80
computers).

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA

[Barry Pearson]

Barry Margolin wrote:

In article <FI7oc.362$wB.125@newsfe1-win>,
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

But I know, from decades in IT R&D, that similar investments can
occur there too. And it applies to software as well as hardware.
(Anyone who hasn't lived through it may not have a clue).

[snip] But there also seems to be a problem with the patent examiners
allowing many software patents for techniques that many of us would
consider obvious. For instance, in the early days of raster
graphics, someone patented the technique of displaying a mouse cursor
or rubber-band line using XOR, even though this was something just
about every graphics programmer figured out how to do on their own (I
remember "inventing" it when I was still in high school 25 years ago,
fooling around with TRS-80 computers).

Chuckle! Some patents leave you a bit amazed, don't they?

But what is the credible alternative? Some people think it is simply wrong to
make money out of ideas. What? So why should someone spend effort having
ideas?

If the drug companies couldn't protect their investment with patents, how
could they recoup their costs? Perhaps:
- Don't spend as much on testing.
- Don't have any sort of government validation scheme.
- Charge immense amounts of money to get a rapid return from dying people.
- Hide your technology, so that no one else will ever be able to make those
drugs.

Hm! Is that a better world?

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Stefan Monnier]

> The "magic" mostly occurs in industries where there's a significant

investment required during the invention process.
Not only that. Other requirements for that elusive magic are: that the
investment can be recouped later, and that it wouldn't be recouped if it
weren't for the ability to patent some part(s) of the result of
the investment.

Many opportunities are not taken (patents or not) just because there's
noone willing or able to pay for it. Subtropical diseases come to mind:
experience seems to strongly indicate that patents don't help a bit here.

Most other industries using patents seem to be able to make money on their
non-patented products just as well as on the others (Bayer's Aspirine being
a good example since the patent expired; computer programs are yet another
good example).
If the inventor doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup
that investment, he may give up on the development, and the same decision
is likely to be made by all the competing inventors.
Most likely he'll just invest on something else.
Last I looked, there was no shortage of things to invent and of people eager
to invent.
The end result would be that no one invents it, and society is poorer as
a result.
Creativity is pretty deeply ingrained in human nature. I'm really not
convinced it needs strong monetary incentives. I think it's more important
to make sure nothing prevents it. E.g. patent-heavy domains tend to stifle
inventivity because you keep bumping into patented-territory and the risk of
being sued is just too large.
But there's often a "race" to be the first one to succeed and patent the
result, because of the advantage that provides. If the patent system
didn't exist, they might not bother entering the race in the first
place, since success wouldn't provide the hoped-for reward.
Gosh, you're right. They might even collaborate instead!Egad!
Many people jog for fun, but they don't usually run as fast as they can
unless there's some kind of reward, like a gold medal (or they're being
chased). The carrot on the stick is a useful encouragement in many
areas of life.

Sure, there's a place and time for everything. I don't think patents as
used currently in computer science and pharmacology are either needed or
even useful for that.
Stefan

[Just Another Alias]

AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu> wrote:

I don't believe that, in all too large large majority of cases, patent
protection plays much or any role in causing things to be invented.
The founders would have disagreed. And looking at our nation's
dominance of technology advancement, I think they still have a strong
case.
Evidence for this is the widespread reaction to many patents among
technically competent people -- note: "technically competent people"
meaning informed and practicing professionals in the field of the
invention, not patent professionals -- that, "Hey, that's trivial", or
"It's obvious", or "It's been done before" or similar.
That is often the reaction to the patents that make page 1 of USA
Today but not to the ordinary, typical patents that issue.
-- the patent system just operates to protect someone who does something
obvious or ordinary (to a competent professional) but just happens to do
it *first* (and has a patent department behind him) -- and that's not
the intention of Art. I, Sect. 8, and does not "promote progress".

Most patent examiners tend to treat the novel as obvious, and it is a
tough fight to get a correct result.

Perhaps it is only to geniuses like you that most inventions are
obvious in hindsight.

Create your own stuff.

Exactly.

I meant, don't copy others' ideas.

[Stefan Monnier]

> I think the pharmaceutical industry is the classic case. They spend

gob-smacking amounts on trying to make the next life-saving drug. The vast
majority of attempts fail in trials. The cost of satisfying government
agencies is huge. And, by the time they have got through the process, there
are only a few years left on the patent, in which to try to get their money
back! Then it becomes "generic", and everyone can make & sell it.
Actually, most of the try&fail takes place in government-financed research.
And don't forget: pharmaceutical companies spend more money on
advertisement than on research.
Change a few details about patent law, and they would make more money if they
just stuck what they had in a bank, fired all their researchers, and just
claimed the interest! (And let people die).

Oh, they already let people die alright, don't you worry.
Stefan

[Stefan Monnier]

> If the drug companies couldn't protect their investment with patents, how

could they recoup their costs? Perhaps:

There's a whole world between "no patenting of any kind" and the
current situation.
Stefan

[AES/newspost]

In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

But there's often a "race" to be the first one to succeed and patent the
result, because of the advantage that provides. If the patent system
didn't exist, they might not bother entering the race in the first
place, since success wouldn't provide the hoped-for reward.

Basically, NOT TRUE! The motivations are many and otherwise.

[AES/newspost]

In article <hf9oc.108$sD1.34@newsfe6-win>,
"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

Chuckle! Some patents leave you a bit amazed, don't they?

But what is the credible alternative?

Need some way to have a meaningful downside for asking for and being
awarded an patent which may later be found invalid.

Here's an idea, admittedly wildly unrealistic, but not impossible and
not wildly nonsensical.

Inventor, who's asking for this special govt license to harm others, is
the one who should presumably know what its possible future value might
be (it's "upside").

So, along with application the inventor states a dollar amount he thinks
the patent is worth (amount is strictly his choice, not necessarily the
same as his hoped for upside, but presumably some fraction of potential
upside).

He then pays this amount as an entirely nonrefundable payment to the
govt in return for being granted this license, if and when the patent
issues.

Once patent has issued all income from the patent up to some multiple of
the initial license fee (maybe 5 times the initial fee) is tax exempt or
gets other special consideration; all direct receipts from the patent
beyond that value are divided between the patent holder and the govt in
some stated ratio (50/50?).

I'm not seriously proposing this; would obviously be extremely difficult
to implement and administer -- but it would have the merit of making the
patent applicants think hard about how much the patents (i.e., the
exclusionary rights) they're asking for would really be worth. If an
inventor can put X million into developing an invention, hoping or
expecting to earn Y millions from a patent on it, he ought to be willing
and able to risk Y/5 millions at the start, in return for right to 80%
of first Y millions of return and 50% of all return beyond that.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jw**************************************@gnu.org> ,
Stefan Monnier <mo*****@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

If the inventor doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup
that investment, he may give up on the development, and the same decision
is likely to be made by all the competing inventors.
Most likely he'll just invest on something else.
Last I looked, there was no shortage of things to invent and of people eager
to invent.

But no matter what he invents, without patent protection he's open to
someone else simply copying it and under-cutting him (since the
competitor doesn't have to recoup his development costs). So it becomes
difficult to make money inventing things -- it's much more profitable
copying.

The end result would be that no one invents it, and society is poorer as
a result.
Creativity is pretty deeply ingrained in human nature. I'm really not
convinced it needs strong monetary incentives. I think it's more important
to make sure nothing prevents it. E.g. patent-heavy domains tend to stifle
inventivity because you keep bumping into patented-territory and the risk of
being sued is just too large.

Yes, creativity is natural. But how many people are so obsessed with
creating that they're willing to go broke doing it? Is someone going to
develop a cancer drug as a hobby?

Someone else mentioned drugs that don't have a high demand, or are for
third-world countries that can't afford to pay high prices. In cases
like these, not only does the government grant patents, they go further
and provide tax incentives.

But there's often a "race" to be the first one to succeed and patent the
result, because of the advantage that provides. If the patent system
didn't exist, they might not bother entering the race in the first
place, since success wouldn't provide the hoped-for reward.

Gosh, you're right. They might even collaborate instead!Egad!

And then *all* of them go broke, since someone who wasn't even in the
race could copy what they came up with.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA

[David Kastrup]

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes:

Barry Margolin wrote:
[snip]

The "magic" mostly occurs in industries where there's a significant
investment required during the invention process. If the inventor
doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup that
investment, he may give up on the development, and the same decision
is likely to be made by all the competing inventors. The end result
would be that no one invents it, and society is poorer as a result. [snip]

I think the pharmaceutical industry is the classic case. They spend
gob-smacking amounts on trying to make the next life-saving drug.

Get your numbers right. They spend more money on advertising than
research.
The vast majority of attempts fail in trials. The cost of satisfying
government agencies is huge. And, by the time they have got through
the process, there are only a few years left on the patent, in which
to try to get their money back! Then it becomes "generic", and
everyone can make & sell it.

Like Aspirin, the biggest single source of income for Bayer. Even
though they had their patent pulled as part of war retributions.

Generic available or not, it still pays their bill. Because of brand
recognition. Who knows about acetylsalicylic acid?

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

[Barry Margolin]

In article <si***************************@news.stanford.edu >,
AES/newspost <si*****@stanford.edu> wrote:

In article <ba**************************@comcast.ash.giganews .com>,
Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

But there's often a "race" to be the first one to succeed and patent the
result, because of the advantage that provides. If the patent system
didn't exist, they might not bother entering the race in the first
place, since success wouldn't provide the hoped-for reward.

Basically, NOT TRUE! The motivations are many and otherwise.

That doesn't contradict what I wrote, since I said "might". Some people
might invent for other reasons, but I suspect it's a relatively small
fraction.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA

[Barry Margolin]

In article <x5************@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <da*@gnu.org>
wrote:

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes:

Barry Margolin wrote:
[snip]

The "magic" mostly occurs in industries where there's a significant
investment required during the invention process. If the inventor
doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup that
investment, he may give up on the development, and the same decision
is likely to be made by all the competing inventors. The end result
would be that no one invents it, and society is poorer as a result.

[snip]

I think the pharmaceutical industry is the classic case. They spend
gob-smacking amounts on trying to make the next life-saving drug.

Get your numbers right. They spend more money on advertising than
research.

That doesn't diminish the amount they spend on R&D. They spend lots on
R&D, and they spend lots more on advertising.

And if they didn't have patents, they would probably have to spend even
*more* on advertising -- not only would they have to convince consumers
that they need the drug in the first place, they would also have to
convince them to buy it specifically from *them* rather than the
competitors who simply copied the drug and are therefore able to sell
for less or do less advertising.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Christopher Browne]

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:

Barry Margolin wrote:
[snip]

The "magic" mostly occurs in industries where there's a significant
investment required during the invention process. If the inventor
doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup that
investment, he may give up on the development, and the same decision
is likely to be made by all the competing inventors. The end result
would be that no one invents it, and society is poorer as a result.

[snip]

I think the pharmaceutical industry is the classic case. They spend
gob-smacking amounts on trying to make the next life-saving drug. The vast
majority of attempts fail in trials. The cost of satisfying government
agencies is huge. And, by the time they have got through the process, there
are only a few years left on the patent, in which to try to get their money
back! Then it becomes "generic", and everyone can make & sell it.

Change a few details about patent law, and they would make more money if they
just stuck what they had in a bank, fired all their researchers, and just
claimed the interest! (And let people die).

There is also a "product churn" problem here...

People might very well be better off if the pharmaceutical industry
_did_ stop doing that work, fired their researchers, and such.

This would be better if it resulted in drugs being marketed based on
actual efficacity, as opposed to them being pushed due to there being
a few years left to run on the patent.

What appears to be happening in the marketplace is that older drugs
are pooh-poohed based on the fact that it is more profitable to market
the still-in-the-patent-money newer ones.

We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
"mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/sap.html
:FATAL ERROR -- ILLEGAL ERROR

[Stefan Monnier]

>> > If the inventor doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup

> that investment, he may give up on the development, and the same decision
> is likely to be made by all the competing inventors. Most likely he'll just invest on something else. Last I looked, there
was no shortage of things to invent and of people eager to invent.

But no matter what he invents, without patent protection he's open to
someone else simply copying it and under-cutting him (since the
competitor doesn't have to recoup his development costs). So it becomes
difficult to make money inventing things -- it's much more profitable
copying.

But we're talking about "making sure people invent", not "making sure people
make money".
In academia, most people spend their life inventing without much desire to
make any kind of money off of it. We're paid to invent, not for the
invention. Kind of like GPL programmers are paid to write the software
rather than being paid for the software itself.

As for someone else copying: most inventions aren't so easy to use, so as
the inventor you're generally in a unique position to actually make use of
it and a competitor would first have to spend time and effort to gain the
understanding, insight, and experience you gained while developing
your invention. You already have an edge. A patent might give you
additional one, but it's often unecessary.

The XEmacs team has complete, total access to the Emacs code along with all
the discussions that took place among the Emacs developers, and yet they
can't keep up "copying" Emacs (and not because they're idiots, mind you).
Copying is not as easy as it's made up to be.
Yes, creativity is natural. But how many people are so obsessed with
creating that they're willing to go broke doing it? Is someone going to
develop a cancer drug as a hobby?
Most people working on cancer drugs are indeed pretty close to what you
describe: they're called "postdocs", working 80 hours a week for a US$30K
a year, and their only drive is to get a position as a professor (which is
getting increasingly like an unreachable dream). Making money off of the
drug is something they may sometimes dream of, who knows, but I'm pretty
sure it's not one of their motivation.
Someone else mentioned drugs that don't have a high demand, or are for
third-world countries that can't afford to pay high prices. In cases
like these, not only does the government grant patents, they go further
and provide tax incentives.

Indeed: there are other ways than patents to spur investments.

> But there's often a "race" to be the first one to succeed and patent the
> result, because of the advantage that provides. If the patent system
> didn't exist, they might not bother entering the race in the first
> place, since success wouldn't provide the hoped-for reward.

Gosh, you're right. They might even collaborate instead!Egad!

And then *all* of them go broke, since someone who wasn't even in the
race could copy what they came up with.

No, they just develop more complementary things instead.
E.g. instead of having competing patentwise-different toothpastes, you have
toothpaste and toothbrushes.
Stefan

[Stefan Monnier]

> *more* on advertising -- not only would they have to convince consumers

that they need the drug in the first place, they would also have to

That's actually an interesting aspect as well: patents basically
encourage greed-based research which leads to new products that are
only marginally useful. But it's OK from a money point of view:
advertisement will convince people that they need it, and people with
enough money (who cares about the rest, after all) will buy it anyway
because they don't have much else left to buy with their money anyway.

I.e. the question is not just "do patents increase research" but also "what
kind of research does it increase".
Stefan

[Barry Pearson]

Stefan Monnier wrote:
[snip]

But we're talking about "making sure people invent", not "making sure
people make money".
In academia, most people spend their life inventing without much
desire to make any kind of money off of it. We're paid to invent,
not for the invention. Kind of like GPL programmers are paid to
write the software rather than being paid for the software itself.

[snip]

Paid by whom? And paid how much?

If academia were to have the responsibility for doing all the inventions, then
they would need money from somewhere. It costs awesome amounts to research and
test new drugs. If they couldn't get it from profits from what they produce,
presumably they would have to get it from taxpayers.

So, instead of drug companies putting vast amounts of shareholder money into
research, at great risk, academics would put vast amounts of taxpayer money
into research, at great risk.

If you progress in this direction, you may eventually end up with the theory
pursued by the Soviet Union, driven by central management rather than the
profit motive. Did that work?

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Barry Pearson]

David Kastrup wrote:

"Barry Pearson" <ne**@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes:

Barry Margolin wrote:
[snip]

> The "magic" mostly occurs in industries where there's a significant
> investment required during the invention process. If the inventor
> doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup that
> investment, he may give up on the development, and the same
> decision is likely to be made by all the competing inventors. The
> end result would be that no one invents it, and society is poorer
> as a result. [snip]

I think the pharmaceutical industry is the classic case. They spend
gob-smacking amounts on trying to make the next life-saving drug.

Get your numbers right. They spend more money on advertising than
research.

[snip]

I didn't provide any numbers. So I didn't get any numbers wrong.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Barry Pearson]

Christopher Browne wrote:

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Barry Pearson" [snip]

I think the pharmaceutical industry is the classic case. They spend
gob-smacking amounts on trying to make the next life-saving drug.
The vast majority of attempts fail in trials. The cost of satisfying
government agencies is huge. And, by the time they have got through
the process, there are only a few years left on the patent, in which
to try to get their money back! Then it becomes "generic", and
everyone can make & sell it.

Change a few details about patent law, and they would make more
money if they just stuck what they had in a bank, fired all their
researchers, and just claimed the interest! (And let people die).

There is also a "product churn" problem here...

People might very well be better off if the pharmaceutical industry
_did_ stop doing that work, fired their researchers, and such.

I share your concern. For example, you may have read about the "polypill".
This is about 5 or 6 generic drugs that everyone over about 50 would take
every day. And the estimate is that it would greatly increase life expectancy.
(I am closer to 50 than 20!)

[snip] What appears to be happening in the marketplace is that older drugs
are pooh-poohed based on the fact that it is more profitable to market
the still-in-the-patent-money newer ones.

We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
"mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.

It works both ways. I have been examining the market for the next generation
of male contraceptives. This isn't about mature drugs - it is a new area. It
will only happen if the drug companies see sufficient pay-back for their
investment. And this is an investment that has been going on a *long* time!
Decades, without return. We have cheap technology in India & China - but it
doesn't match "western" safety standards. Should we reduce our safety
standards?

Years ago, I saw an estimate that it cost about $70million to get a new drug
past the FDA in the USA. (I'm in the UK - I don't have an equivalent figure).
And then they expect to have perhaps 10,000 or more law suits, over the
life-time of the drug.

Gosh! We could simply stagnate, if we are not careful.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

[Stefan Monnier]

> So, instead of drug companies putting vast amounts of shareholder money into

research, at great risk, academics would put vast amounts of taxpayer money
into research, at great risk.

It's what's happening every day in the US.
Stefan

[derelict]

On Tue, 11 May 2004 23:31:31 +0100, Barry Pearson wrote:

So, instead of drug companies putting vast amounts of shareholder
money into research, at great risk, academics would put vast amounts
of taxpayer money into research, at great risk.
Pharmaceutical research is heavily subsidized by the US government.
Drug companies put about the same percentage of their after-subsidy
profits into R&D that tech companies do. "The high cost of R&D" is just
a line they use to get the rubes to happily pay exhorbitant prices.
If you progress in this direction, you may eventually end up with the
theory pursued by the Soviet Union, driven by central management
rather than the profit motive. Did that work?

The way this country has been going, I'm starting to wonder if
American-style hyper-capitalism will turn out any better?

Checking my oracle...

"Future hazy, try again later"

Oh, well. :o\

[Barry Margolin]

In article <2g************@uni-berlin.de>,
Christopher Browne <cb******@acm.org> wrote:

We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
"mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.

But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of the
drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of being
mature.

Patents are a two-edged sword.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jw**************************************@gnu.org> ,
Stefan Monnier <mo*****@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

> If the inventor doesn't have a reasonable hope of being able to recoup
> that investment, he may give up on the development, and the same decision
> is likely to be made by all the competing inventors.
Most likely he'll just invest on something else. Last I looked, there
was no shortage of things to invent and of people eager to invent. But no matter what he invents, without patent protection he's open to
someone else simply copying it and under-cutting him (since the
competitor doesn't have to recoup his development costs). So it becomes
difficult to make money inventing things -- it's much more profitable
copying.

But we're talking about "making sure people invent", not "making sure people
make money".
In academia, most people spend their life inventing without much desire to
make any kind of money off of it. We're paid to invent, not for the

Have you noticed that many of the large patent portfolios are owned by
universities these days? This is how they're able to pay their
researchers. They used to do it mostly with government grants, but
since the government has scaled back on this, they needed to find
alternate sources of funds.

I.e. if the inventor is being paid to invent, then it's usually the guy
paying him that expects to get paid for the invention.
invention. Kind of like GPL programmers are paid to write the software
rather than being paid for the software itself.

Note that the other aspect of the patent process is that in return for
the monopoly, you're required to publish the details of the invention.
If you hire a programmer to work for you on software that you don't
distribute (i.e. it's just for in-house use), there's no downside to GPL.

Yes, creativity is natural. But how many people are so obsessed with
creating that they're willing to go broke doing it? Is someone going to
develop a cancer drug as a hobby?

Most people working on cancer drugs are indeed pretty close to what you
describe: they're called "postdocs", working 80 hours a week for a US$30K
a year, and their only drive is to get a position as a professor (which is
getting increasingly like an unreachable dream). Making money off of the
drug is something they may sometimes dream of, who knows, but I'm pretty
sure it's not one of their motivation.

Someone is paying them that $30K -- they hope to make money off it (or
they're the government).

I'm aware that hobbyists sometimes do produce important inventions --
personal computers came out of work people did in their garages. On the
other hand, there's no way that transistors, integrated circuits, or
disk drives could have been developed in the same way.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jw**************************************@gnu.org> ,
Stefan Monnier <mo*****@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

*more* on advertising -- not only would they have to convince consumers
that they need the drug in the first place, they would also have to

That's actually an interesting aspect as well: patents basically
encourage greed-based research which leads to new products that are
only marginally useful. But it's OK from a money point of view:
advertisement will convince people that they need it, and people with
enough money (who cares about the rest, after all) will buy it anyway
because they don't have much else left to buy with their money anyway.

I.e. the question is not just "do patents increase research" but also "what
kind of research does it increase".

Do you really think that *patents* are what spur this? I think
commercialism in general is what does it.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Stefan Monnier]

> Have you noticed that many of the large patent portfolios are owned by

universities these days?
Oh yes.
This is how they're able to pay their researchers.
Well, not quite yet (after all, it's still a fairly recent development),
but it's becoming one of the largest source of income indeed.
They used to do it mostly with government grants, but since the
government has scaled back on this, they needed to find alternate sources
of funds.
And that's a major problem, of course.

I.e. the question is not just "do patents increase research" but also "what
kind of research does it increase".

Do you really think that *patents* are what spur this?

No, I'm not that naive ;-)
I think commercialism in general is what does it.

But patents make it more so.
Stefan

[Rahul Dhesi]

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> writes:

But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of the
drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of being
mature. Patents are a two-edged sword.

Notice how all the serious flaws in the entire patent system are being
defended on the basis of one rather narrow exception.
--
Rahul

[Chris Kwan]

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message news:<ba**************************@comcast.ash.gig anews.com>...

In article <2g************@uni-berlin.de>,
Christopher Browne <cb******@acm.org> wrote:

We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
"mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.

But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of the
drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of being
mature.

Patents are a two-edged sword.

I disagree here. Patent is virtually a western invention with less
than 300 yrs of history if I am correct. The easterners created many
inventions and shared many ideas openly by making available the text,
including pasta and making of paper and silk. Of course one would
argue that only limited people may have accessed to these text so in a
way is a barrier. But the fact still remains many inventions
particularly in medicine were tested and challeged by a series of
trial and error in the past. Many modern medicine particularly those
that look for active elements were sourced from ancient manuscripts
for example, resistance to malaria ?

There was this story about how some chinese doctors found some
medicinal herbs that can cure this during Moa days but because of
politics then they could not publish in the west. These doctors were
reading an old manuscript about a plant that grow in rivers and used
this to provide the active ingredient. US Army wanted this but again
because of politics could not obtain the drug but later found out that
in fact the same plant is also found in US etc. There was also the
story of first medical examiner book (for autopsy)from China more than
2000 years written by a famous examiner in his days. The knowledge
there provided the basis for many details of poison and how these can
be detected etc. Do they have patents then ? Nope, but they did have
an apprentice system and knowledge were handed down this way much like
Kung Fu. Did this help to promote new art ? Yeap. Did this increase
the cost of medicine by R & D ? Nope and doctors then were poor as you
know as the chinese medicine looks at prevention rather than cure. BTW
until today no western technology can unravel the art of acupunture
and how it works though and obviously no patents either. There were
many theories and if they can't be explained then its fail the western
standard I guess.

CK

[Barry Margolin]

In article <b8**************************@posting.google.com >,
kh****@yahoo.com (Chris Kwan) wrote:

I disagree here. Patent is virtually a western invention with less
than 300 yrs of history if I am correct. The easterners created many
inventions and shared many ideas openly by making available the text,
including pasta and making of paper and silk. Of course one would
argue that only limited people may have accessed to these text so in a
way is a barrier. But the fact still remains many inventions
particularly in medicine were tested and challeged by a series of
trial and error in the past. Many modern medicine particularly those
that look for active elements were sourced from ancient manuscripts
for example, resistance to malaria ?

Patents are indeed a relatively recent invention, but that may be
because they're only a recent need. Hundreds of years ago, many of the
inventions like the ones you mentioned were necessities of life. It
doesn't take much encouragement to develop technologies that make life
possible, but improvements and conveniences are a different matter.

Also, because travel was harder and the population smaller, communities
were much smaller. Craftsmen mostly worked for themselves and sold to
their local communities, so competition was not a problem. If someone
hundreds of miles away copied your invention it didn't matter to you,
because his customers were not potential customers of yours.

It has also been argued that one of the reasons why the US became the
source of so much technology development in the 19th and 20th centuries
is because of our patent system. Yes, there has always been invention,
but the rate over the past couple of centuries in the west has been a
quantum leap beyond previous times. Some of this can be attributed to a
general "industrious spirit" of Americans, as well as developments
necessary to open up our frontiers (guns, railroads). Unfortunately,
it's difficult to tell the precise cause-effect relationships -- it's
not possible to perform a controlled experiment to see what would happen
in a country just like the US but without our patent system.

--
Barry Margolin, ba****@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Rahul Dhesi]

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> writes:

It has also been argued that one of the reasons why the US became the
source of so much technology development in the 19th and 20th centuries
is because of our patent system....

It has also been argued that the more productive and advanced an economy
gets, the stroger the pro-patent-system lobby becomes, and the stronger
the patent system gets.

The same is true of copyrights and trade marks.
--
Rahul

[23 Skiddoo !]

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

..

It has also been argued that the more productive and advanced an economy
gets, the stroger the pro-patent-system lobby becomes, and the stronger
the patent system gets.

The same is true of copyrights and trade marks.

of course, because at that point the country no longer wants to *encourage*
the sole inventor -- that would be a disturbance. it wants to limit
change -- and assigning long term patents is a way of limiting
innovation...which is what a mature country would naturally want to do.

This is all part of the Europeanization of American.

First they invade us with IKEA stores -- gradually infusing a cutrate
Bauhaus ethic into our apartments and dorm rooms. The next step is
government sponsored hashish programs.

--
W '04 !

[Stefan Monnier]

> It has also been argued that one of the reasons why the US became the

source of so much technology development in the 19th and 20th centuries
is because of our patent system. Yes, there has always been invention,

Don't know about the 19th century, but many people explain the success of
the US in technology R&D to massive amounts of direct government funding
(much higher in proportion than European states).
Stefan

[Chuck Szmanda]

You are not correct. The Venetian Patent Act was enacted by the Venetian
Senate in 1474. Here is a part of that ordinance:

We have among us men of great genius, apt to invent and discover ingenious
devices... Now, if provisions were made for the works and devices discovered
by such persons, so that others who may see them could not build them and
take the inventor's honor [sic] away, more men would then apply their
genius, would discover, and would build devices of great utility to our
commonwealth.
Gilfillan, S.C. (1964), Invention and the Patent System , Materials Relating
to Continuing Studies of Technology, Economic Growth, and the Variability of
Private Investment, Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States,
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), p. 11.

"Chris Kwan" <kh****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8**************************@posting.google.c om...

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message

news:<ba**************************@comcast.ash.gig anews.com>...

In article <2g************@uni-berlin.de>,
Christopher Browne <cb******@acm.org> wrote:

We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
"mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.

But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of the
drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of being
mature.

Patents are a two-edged sword.

I disagree here. Patent is virtually a western invention with less
than 300 yrs of history if I am correct. The easterners created many
inventions and shared many ideas openly by making available the text,
including pasta and making of paper and silk. Of course one would
argue that only limited people may have accessed to these text so in a
way is a barrier. But the fact still remains many inventions
particularly in medicine were tested and challeged by a series of
trial and error in the past. Many modern medicine particularly those
that look for active elements were sourced from ancient manuscripts
for example, resistance to malaria ?

There was this story about how some chinese doctors found some
medicinal herbs that can cure this during Moa days but because of
politics then they could not publish in the west. These doctors were
reading an old manuscript about a plant that grow in rivers and used
this to provide the active ingredient. US Army wanted this but again
because of politics could not obtain the drug but later found out that
in fact the same plant is also found in US etc. There was also the
story of first medical examiner book (for autopsy)from China more than
2000 years written by a famous examiner in his days. The knowledge
there provided the basis for many details of poison and how these can
be detected etc. Do they have patents then ? Nope, but they did have
an apprentice system and knowledge were handed down this way much like
Kung Fu. Did this help to promote new art ? Yeap. Did this increase
the cost of medicine by R & D ? Nope and doctors then were poor as you
know as the chinese medicine looks at prevention rather than cure. BTW
until today no western technology can unravel the art of acupunture
and how it works though and obviously no patents either. There were
many theories and if they can't be explained then its fail the western
standard I guess.

CK

[Alun]

"Chuck Szmanda" <cs******@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:Z%*****************@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net:

You are not correct. The Venetian Patent Act was enacted by the
Venetian Senate in 1474. Here is a part of that ordinance:

We have among us men of great genius, apt to invent and discover
ingenious devices... Now, if provisions were made for the works and
devices discovered by such persons, so that others who may see them
could not build them and take the inventor's honor [sic] away, more men
would then apply their genius, would discover, and would build devices
of great utility to our commonwealth.
Gilfillan, S.C. (1964), Invention and the Patent System , Materials
Relating to Continuing Studies of Technology, Economic Growth, and the
Variability of Private Investment, Joint Economic Committee, Congress
of the United States, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office),
p. 11.

"Chris Kwan" <kh****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b8**************************@posting.google.c om...

Barry Margolin <ba****@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:<ba**************************@comcast.ash.gig anews.com>...

> In article <2g************@uni-berlin.de>,
> Christopher Browne <cb******@acm.org> wrote:
>
> > We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
> > "mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
> > opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.
>
> But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of
> the drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of
> being mature.
>
> Patents are a two-edged sword.

I disagree here. Patent is virtually a western invention with less
than 300 yrs of history if I am correct. The easterners created many
inventions and shared many ideas openly by making available the text,
including pasta and making of paper and silk. Of course one would
argue that only limited people may have accessed to these text so in a
way is a barrier. But the fact still remains many inventions
particularly in medicine were tested and challeged by a series of
trial and error in the past. Many modern medicine particularly those
that look for active elements were sourced from ancient manuscripts
for example, resistance to malaria ?

There was this story about how some chinese doctors found some
medicinal herbs that can cure this during Moa days but because of
politics then they could not publish in the west. These doctors were
reading an old manuscript about a plant that grow in rivers and used
this to provide the active ingredient. US Army wanted this but again
because of politics could not obtain the drug but later found out that
in fact the same plant is also found in US etc. There was also the
story of first medical examiner book (for autopsy)from China more than
2000 years written by a famous examiner in his days. The knowledge
there provided the basis for many details of poison and how these can
be detected etc. Do they have patents then ? Nope, but they did have
an apprentice system and knowledge were handed down this way much like
Kung Fu. Did this help to promote new art ? Yeap. Did this increase
the cost of medicine by R & D ? Nope and doctors then were poor as you
know as the chinese medicine looks at prevention rather than cure. BTW
until today no western technology can unravel the art of acupunture
and how it works though and obviously no patents either. There were
many theories and if they can't be explained then its fail the western
standard I guess.

CK

Less than 300 years would refer to the US, I suppose, but seeing as the
country itself is less than 300 years old that's hardly surprising. Of
course, the real origin of US patent law is the English patent law,
beginning with the Statute of Monopolies, signed into law by King James I
in 1623.

Even then, there were patents issued in England before there was a patent
law, at the prerogative of the king. The patent that was retrospectively
numbered as number 1 was issued in 1617, but in fact some patents for
inventions were issued in England in the 1500s.

The term 'patent' originally referred to any grant of a monopoly from the
king. The Statute of Monopolies was actually a reform limiting patents to
only patents of invention. Before that, a patent could be granted to limit
sale of a particular staple commodity to one vendor in a particular
locality, which was a form of patronage. There was controversy over patents
to sell salt, I think, leading to reform of the law.

The original wording of the law listed certain types of invention as
patentable, including compositions of gunpowder, and then added any 'method
of manufacture', wording that persisted in England for centuries.

Prior to 1853, it was necessary to go through several government
departments to get a UK patent, and only then was the UK Patent Office
created, so technically the US Patent Office is older.