Patents smart?

[So]

Patents are a good thing in theory, as is copyright, but both systems, as they stand in the U.S. Today are very distorted/broken.

The concept of the 'submarine' patent, the ability to patent anything obvious (you used to not be able to patent something if an 'expert' in the field thought it was an obvious idea), the really, really broad patent, and the ability to patent things that you don't really know how to build.

The concept of software patents is crazy too...software fits really well under copyright, so long as you can understand that look and feel, not just code structure is part of 'copyright'

For that matter, see the RIAA's abuse of 'fair use' and Disney's eternal copyright. :|

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Malak
So then you are saying not a single health care professional really cares about your health, they only care about money? I think you guys think way too little about your fellow man.

Name one scientist who is willing to work 20+ years without being paid today. Ok now name the 50+ needed for a new drug who will work without pay for that time. Finally, name the people who have ten million to attempt to test it for FDA approval.

The government hands out billions of dollars for free to people to do whatever they want, even come up with cures for diseases. There's no reason to think health care would fall apart because of lack of patents...

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Ned
Intellectual Property is a vital part of the global economy.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Malak
The government hands out billions of dollars for free to people to do whatever they want, even come up with cures for diseases. There's no reason to think health care would fall apart because of lack of patents...

I do have an issue with your "whatever they want" part. Getting a grant is difficult. Have you tried it? Much of the grant money is for whatever the government wants. Yes, there are unsolisited general grant proposals, but there are also very specific grants (specific requirements specified by the government). Also, in all your posts you seem to confuse health care (doctors treating patients) with health research (development of new drugs, machines, etc).

Government funding accounts for ~55% of drug research. So, instantly you are wanting to cut new drugs in half. But there are still other questions. Who will do the FDA testing and approval (as research costs are just a part of the picture)? What company will pay for that and take the public blows for failures when all other companies can just copy the successes?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Malak

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Malak
So then you are saying not a single health care professional really cares about your health, they only care about money? I think you guys think way too little about your fellow man.

Name one scientist who is willing to work 20+ years without being paid today. Ok now name the 50+ needed for a new drug who will work without pay for that time. Finally, name the people who have ten million to attempt to test it for FDA approval.

The government hands out billions of dollars for free to people to do whatever they want, even come up with cures for diseases. There's no reason to think health care would fall apart because of lack of patents...

Do you realize how much revenue in sales Merck alone pulled in during the year 2000?

Over $40 billion.

Over $2.4 billion went into R+D alone.

Pfeizer had almost $30 billion in revenue, and put almost $4.5 billion into R+D.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: EngenZerO

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The concept of the patent is sound, but it shouldn't be applied to software or to intangible things like business models.

hah, i work in the patent office in the business models group... :/

its the story of my life...

So you're responsible for Amazon's "One-Click" patent...

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The concept of the patent is sound, but it shouldn't be applied to software or to intangible things like business models.

why not? software is just machine instructions. i suppose if you came up with a new thing for a machine to do you'd probably want to patent it. software is exactly that.

The problem with software is that the length of time the patent is in effect is 17 years.

maybe the length of the time should be changed based on the ability of the market to change. that doesn't mean that patents should be scrapped for that market.