|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 18 2012 @ 03:15 AM EDT |
Obviously patents didn't help, no? So the question is how to stimulate good
research that seeks for a healthier life and clean nature regardless of patent
system. Humanity didn't see too much good from most of the research done in the
last century.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 18 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
Trick is - patents are sort of a lousy way to generate this
return. I keep hoping that people will figure out a better
one. It might be better to figure out a way to reward
socially useful research besides granting monopoly status.
In particular, once you grant monopoly status, innovation
slows down.
Not that this would work, but industry-specific taxation
(including import taxes...) with the proceeds going in a
weighted fashion to companies that had filed useful patents
and forfeited injunctive patent rights could provide a
decent incentive. I'm thinking xx% of the gross.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: marcosdumay on Monday, June 18 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
What other alternatives to patents could we
suggest?
You cite some alternatives for supporting basic
research, and then asks for alternatives to patents. You are confusing matters.
(Just like those CFOs. When did it become mandatory that managers have pointy
haired hair?) Patents do not support basic research, they never did and they
aren't fit for that use.
Now there are two questions. Let's take the
easier one first: "What is the alternative to patents?" Well, as far as I can
see, the only alternative on the horizon is "no patents". If somebody cames with
a social hack that is better than both of those, great, but I never heard about
any.
The second question is: "how do we make the private initiative
invest more on basic research?" That is hard to answer. I think our problem is
structural, basic research has just become too decoupled from applied research.
That is a problem that will be solved with time, when we finaly exploit all the
options that our current understanding make available for us, and thus, we'll
need to extend that understanding. But that's not a definitive answer, as I have
very little data to support it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jjs on Monday, June 18 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
The problem is looking at patents at the alternative. Rather, research is the
alternative to patents. I'm serious. Continuing research creates new products
to sell. Patents are a way to monopolize what you have, but result in the
"we have patents, what do we need research for?" attitude.
If companies HAVE to be creative (because they can't do one thing and then
collect money for 20 years), they will BECOME creative.
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|