On patents and R&D, I have a question for those who are in the know. Now,
all of what I say below is me mostly asking questions, and giving my
impression of what I think the answer might be, but I would love for anyone
to correct me if I am wrong.
What's the translation for R&D to profit? I mean to ask, do companies tend
to lay, say, ten R&D projects out hoping that one will deliver a feasibly
product, and then produce say ten trial products hoping that one will be a
major winner and then make it all back off that one? How conservative is
the process, generally?
My readings in one early period of patents and patenting is that, rather
than there being a really solid kind of directed R&D going on, there was
more of a widespread kind of sloppy haphazard research, but it actually
produced dozens upon dozens of products. For example, now we tend to think
of the phonograph as a kind of "standard predecessor" type of technology to
the LP turntable, but really, the "standard LP turntable" that we inherited
comes out of an almost shocking variety of pre-standardized phonographic
and other technologies. This kind of thing is discussed in the first
chapter of Freeman Dyson's _Imagined Worlds_, but in reverse . . . Dyson
makes the argument that you can't force a technology to become popular, and
if it doesn't become popular through pure appeal or convenience or need,
then trying to force it to do so will only end in disaster (and thus if I
read and remember him correctly, he argues that governmental pushing of
things like nuclear power is not desirable).
But I've been thinking is almost the opposite . . . about how the drive to
profit might impact on the pace and nature of development -- on that kind
of popularity that Dyson notes. ie.: "If it's a product everyone wants,
then we'd better keep it secret till we finish it so nobody rips off our
idea." Why, after all, would a company want to patent a specific gene or
series, except to prevent others from researching in that area? Now,
certainly that makes good business sense -- you want to protect your
investment in research. The problem is, it seems to me, that it could
easily make for a bad situation for science because it's secretive and
avoids collaboration and cooperation of experts and inventive minds outside
of the immediate project circle. What I'm worried about isn't so much the
losses that the company might suffer due to someone else copying their
research and figuring out what to do with it more quickly -- what I am
trying to note instead is the losses that we all suffer because of the
effective slowdown and uncooperativeness in development that seems to be
the natural product of that kind of setup. As in, we miss all of those
other peripheral insights that could refine and redirect the product much
more quickly, effectively, and "profitably" for all (using, of course,
another sense of the word "profit" than we usually mean, and one that is
all but dead).
How far off is my assessment of the situation? I've been thinking it
because some people onlist, including Dan, have in the past posited
arguments that scientific/technological development is slowed down because
science is getting harder. That may be true, especially in physics (that
and the niches that we seem to have cultivated are getting filled quicker
and quicker), but I think there must also be a socio/economic and cultural
component. When before now did profits play such a huge role in inhibiting
transparent collaboration and competition throughout a field of study? Or
am I misunderstanding the history of science before the rise of a
megacorporation?
All thoughts, discussion, and even berating are welcome on this.
Gord
