ITC recommends Xbox 360 ban in the USA for violating Motorola's patents

19 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@GoddersUK: I don't agree.

We had innovation before patents. Henry Ford did not patent the car and Ford is still doing fine.

The first patent laws existed in 500 bc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History. Henry Ford did not invent the car. His innovation was to give his company a competitive advantage via the use of the production line. He was therefore able to produce cars faster and more cheaply than his competitors. For the example I used, with the pharmaceutical, this doesn't particularly apply. The innovation is in the product itself - any company can make it once its been discovered, but the discovering company will be at a disadvantage due to massive research debts - hence the need for a patent. (And the benefit to society is a) companies continue to invest in researching new drugs and b) they disclose their research and, after a period of time, it becomes public domain.)

I think you also misunderstand the (intended) purpose of patents. They're not for patenting an application per se. ("the car") but a specific innovation (e.g. some specific of how a part of the engine works). This is hugely beneficial to the general populace because I can come along and build cars too, but I have to think up something that replaces the component that would violate the patent AND give me a good selling point for my cars over his.

 

I can't even reverse engineer some sort of control, because it is patented. That means that I can't write the best app and prevents me from competing.

See what I said above about the situations in which patents should be used. The software industry in particular (although not only them) have been using patents to suppress competition, rather than protect innovation. Patents are mostly not suitable in this case - but that doesn't mean patents are not suitable in other circumstances.  

10 hours ago, cheong wrote

*snip*

Seriously, people invent when they see a way to fill unfulfilled need, no matter whether there's patent or not. People don't stop inventing things even if patent is not there, just that the inventors may not properly get their deserved credit.

Given the money governments and companies spent these year for patent related lawsuits and so on, I would rather to have goverment granting beefy prize for recognition of their contribution to mankind (much like Nobel prize) instead of granting monopolies for it.

We're making innovating companies spending too much money needlessly, only to protect themselves from being sued by patent trolls who just register for the idea and never actually implements it themselves, and charges huge licensing fees from it.

Again, this may be true in the tech industry but not in all other industries.

I think people greatly underestimate the costs and investments made in research in many sectors.

GSK, for example, have research budget of £3.9 billion pa (~ $6 billion). A single new drug costs them £500-800 million (potentially >$1 billion) and can take them 15 years to develop. Many drugs that they start developing will fail at some point in the development cycle. This needs to be paid for. If, once they've discovered the drug, someone else can come along and make it and sell it for less because they don't have to cover R&D costs GSK would go bankrupt and wouldn't discover any new drugs. Ending patents would not be a case of some guy sitting in his shed not becoming a millionaire, it would be case of no new drugs, no new materials, no new low carbon technologies, no advances in computer hardware.

(source: http://www.gsk.com/research/science-and-innovation/index.htm) 

A patent is protection of investment made. People/organisations won't/don't make investments where the risks are too high.

Patents can also be used by those who wish to make an invention/discovery freely available - by securing the patent on it they can ensure that no one does in the future and that no one is able to limit anyone else's use of the discovery/invention.

5 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@cbae: I'm trying to make fishing rods, but some *sshole thinks its a good idea to put a patent on fishing wire, the lures, the type of hooks, the type of mills, the composite material of the rod itself. So I want to make a rod, but by law, I'm not allowed to.

Go invent a fishing spear.

@GoddersUK: Okay, I'll agree that for areas where huge cost could have incurred so needs protection of investment, patents could have been justified.

For things other than that, the patents are used wrongly.

A primary fault in current system is someone who built nothing can sue others who actually built something (and built with independent knowledge) for building that, and claims they stolen his idea and wants a cut.

@GoddersUK: and why does it take them so much to research a drug?

More regulation, protected by even more regulation. Two wrongs does not make a right.

@Maddus Mattus: So that this doesn't happen.

6 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@GoddersUK: and why does it take them so much to research a drug?

More regulation, protected by even more regulation. Two wrongs does not make a right.

Feel free to volunteer for all the clinical trials to speed up the process.

This thread reminded me of this: