----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:24 PM Subject: Re: new wonder drug scours arteries clean
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 06:19:44PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > > It's an old dispute between the Fool and myself that you may have > > chosen to ignore. I'm all but certain (would bet $100 but not my > > house) that he has stated that patents are evil and that things would > > be better if they were eliminated. I'm pretty sure (bet $10 but not > > $100) that these discussions occurred while you were onlist. > > The reason I ask is because, as stated by you, that position is similar > to mine. I'm not that extreme, but I do think (and have stated) that the > patent system is way out of control now and that far too many patents > are granted, and often should not have been granted (should as in, > using the current standards properly if the examiner had done adequate > research), and are virtually always for too long a term. I think the > system would work much better if as few as 10% as many patents were > granted as are now, and if the terms averaged less than 5 years (perhaps > variable terms depending on the item and the quality of the invention). I'm not going to argue that the present system is wonderful, but I see different problems. The core problem is that examiners do not have ordinary skill in the art.They do grant invalid patents, and they also gut valid patents. I've seen the companies with the best lawyers get payments for patents that their own earlier disclosers invalidated and find ways to pick the language apart in valid patents of new ideas to the point where someone who doesn't know what's going on. As far as 5 years go; in the industries that I am familiar with, five years is a short time for patents. It probably takes at least a couple of years to develop, and that just leaves about 3 years of coverage. Remember, the patent application must be made before any disclosure of the ideas in the patent or the first commercial use. > I also agree with the statement that people would still develop many > things without IP protection. But not things with high NRE associated with development. If a lead of a few years on the competition is all it takes, and if there is not a big advantage in just copying a technique, then you are right. But if your competitors can have, say, 10% lower costs by just copying, then why bother developing first? Drugs are a classic example of this. Once a drug has passed clinical trials, the cost of copying is much smaller than the cost of development. Further, there's no risk in copying. They already do, and in some areas I think > government or educational institutions would actually be more efficient, > in terms of using available resources and creating beneficial advances > for everyone, than the current state of affairs. Some, but not all. The problem that I see with that is that it tends to put tremendous power in the hands of "the wise committee" and eliminates risk taking. I've got friends who work at small start ups working on an AIDS drug. The present model allows them to take a significant risk of failure, knowing that the payoff for success will pay for it. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
