Re: Where would we be without these important patents?

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:27:59 -0000, "Andy F." <never.mind@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:441af311.19388493@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:46:35 -0000, "Andy F." <never.mind@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

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?

I didn't use a post hoc fallacy.

Yes, of course you did.

You raised the question of what happened
before there were patents.

And you couldnt't answer it, because the only possible answer
destroyed your argument. So you trotted out the post hac fallacy
instead.

The fact is that before patents, technological
progress was very slow for centuries.

Nope. In fact, technological progress was roughly proportional to
total economic production and the level of scientific knowledge both
before _and_after_ patents. The publication of Newton's Principia had
far more impact on technological progress than patent privileges.

A fact which destroys the argument you
were trying to make.

No, of course it doesn't, because in the first place it is not true,
and in the second place even if it were true, it would be nothing but
a post hoc fallacy.

No, they only get some of the credit.

Why any of it? Only because of your post hoc fallacy.

The historical evidence just confirms what economic theory predicts.

Economic theory predicts no such thing, and the historical evidence
outright refutes it. What economic theory does predict is that
granting monopoly privileges is one of the least efficient ways to
provide an incentive.

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.

Any evidence for that claim?

The ratio of patent filings to published scientific papers.

Which only proves that scientists write a lot of papers.

No, it proves your claims are flat false. Technological progress is
driven by scientific progress, which does not get any IP monopoly
privileges. It is not driven by patents, as, for example, the Soviet
Union's successful development of space flight technology before the
USA in the total absence of patents proves.

In other cases, the imitators will have an
advantage because they can learn from their competitors' mistakes and
produce a better product.

No, that almost never happens, because the first producer has much
better information about the product, customer problems, etc.

It's quite common. For example, do you remember when Sinclair produced the
world's first home computer?

It wasn't the first, just the cheapest up to that time. And how is it
germane to the issue? Sinclair made some bad business decisions,
dropped the ball on the technology, and was left behind. And he had
patents, lots of them. So that example just proves you wrong again.

Now have you got any reason to believe that the extra innovation caused by
the patent system isn't worth having?

Yes, of course: it's focused on what is most patentable, not on what
is most useful and promising.

Nonsense. Unless you patent something useful, the patent isn't worth a
thing.

Irrelevant. A losing lottery ticket isn't worth a thing, either.
That doesn't stop people from buying them. And buying those tickets
reduces the amount people have to invest in more useful things, just
as the huge rent seeker spending on worthless but patentable
technologies crowds out more useful and promising research on
unpatentable technologies.

Unless you're going to explain what's
special about Dyson. Why did he have a chance but other people don't?

He's smart, prolific, and works on simple technologies.

Is it unusual for an inventor to be smart?

It's quite unusual for one to have Dyson's business acumen.

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.

Dreaming up a new invention might be enjoyable. However, developing an
invention into a marketable product involves a lot of hard work, which
people aren't going to do unless they're getting paid.

And people do it just as willingly for unpatented as for patented
products. Your arguments are garbage.

If the product wasn't patentable, people would be less likely to get paid
for developing it.

But _more_ likely to get paid for devloping a more useful
_un_patentable one.

My arguments are destroying your arguments, but as usual
you're being too arrogant to admit it.

ROTFL!! Your arguments lie in ruins. All of them. Deal with it.

-- Roy L
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Where would we be without these important patents?
    ... monopolies has been even greater than the progress in technology. ... Which only proves that scientists write a lot of papers. ... Union's successful development of space flight technology before the ... USA in the total absence of patents proves. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Dr Anne De Wees Allen Files 3 Patents on Sickle Cell
    ... I am a multi-millionaire many times over for my patents. ... I am head of the Agel medical advisory board, ... scientists in the world in their fields. ... advance technology in delivery systems is Gel Technology. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Dr Anne De Wees Allen Files 3 Patents on Sickle Cell
    ... I am a multi-millionaire many times over for my patents. ... I am head of the Agel medical advisory board, ... scientists in the world in their fields. ... advance technology in delivery systems is Gel Technology. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Dr Anne De Wees Allen Files 3 Patents on Sickle Cell
    ... I am a multi-millionaire many times over for my patents. ... I am head of the Agel medical advisory board, ... scientists in the world in their fields. ... advance technology in delivery systems is Gel Technology. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Dr Anne De Wees Allen Files 3 Patents on Sickle Cell
    ... I am a multi-millionaire many times over for my patents. ... I am head of the Agel medical advisory board, ... scientists in the world in their fields. ... advance technology in delivery systems is Gel Technology. ...
    (soc.culture.african.american)