Re: Where would we be without these important patents?

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:09:30 -0000, "Andy F." <never.mind@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4418e1af.7530316@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 02:44:55 -0000, "Andy F." <never.mind@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"nospam" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JKWdne-jtsfgYYjZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy F. wrote:

That would mean a lot of inventors would be out of a job.

From where you got this idea ? The scientists and engineers are employed
to
design a product. The company will have the full right to use this
designs.

But without exclusive use of the designs, the firm won't make enough
profits
to justify paying the inventors' wages.

Such claims are common, but false and ridiculous. Do you think no
inventor was ever paid wages before there were patents? Give your
head a shake.

Technological progress has been a lot faster since patents were introduced.

That is a blatant post hoc fallacy. So has population growth,
literacy rates, democratic governance, life expectancy, etc. Do
patents get all the credit for those, too? In fact, the rate of
progress in scientific discoveries that do _not_ qualify for IP
monopolies has been even greater than the progress in technology.
Your argument is therefore proved to be utter garbage.

It would be more profitable to wait
until someone else invented a new product and then copy them.

No, that is also flat, outright wrong, because then you are behind the
market. Whoever comes out with the product first has a chance to sell
to those who want the product most, and thus sell at a higher price.
Waiting until someone else has a successful product just gets you more
intense competition, customers who do not want the product enough to
buy it right away, and consequently a lower price.

That will be true for some products.

You misspelled, "almost all."

There's a short term advantage to being
the first on the market.But that won't always be enough to justify the cost
of developing a new product.

So? Some new products do not provide enough additional utility to be
worth developing. Think Edsel, PCjr, New Coke, and all the patented
drugs that later get banned when it turns out they kill people.

However, if during this work a invention,innovation,genial idea pops up
this
is the creation of the inventor and it must be his or her own property.
Assuming exclusive ownership of somebody else creation is just plain
looting.

It's not looting. Patents only become the property of companies because
the
inventors agree to that.

In a sense. Inventors know they have little chance against corporate
legal departments if they invent independently.

You're exaggerating about that.Dyson seems to be doing OK owning his own
patents.

Oh, gosh, one guy! Guess that proves you're right, huh?

Give your head a shake.

Inventors usually agree to work for a salary because it gives them a regular
income instead of having to wait for uncertain rewards in the future.

Nope. Flat wrong, as usual. They work for salaries because they know
a fact that you refuse to know: that they invent because they like it,
not because they anticipate being able to collect monopoly rents. If
there were no patents, inventors would just be hired to work on the
most promising lines of development, not only the most patentable
ones. Patents are no longer stimulating technological progress, if
they ever did. They are stifling it.

Oh, and FYI: I am an amateur inventor (no patents, of course), and I
have friends, relatives and clients who are inventors and patent
holders. They are all nice people, and most of them have no interest
in rent seeking. They'd be just as happy to invent for the public
domain as employees in a university or government lab, and to work on
unpatentable technologies. Your arguments are not based on fact.

-- Roy L
.