> Eric Hines wrote: > > > Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one > > I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a > monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous. > > > --it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs > > innovation > > I've never seen any evidence that granting a monopoly over an idea > (patents) spur innovation. And I have seen a lot of evidence to the > contrary. Putting roadblocks in the sharing of ideas inhibits > progress, since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications > of old ones. > > >--the performance of the open source community notwithstanding. > > And the scientific community, which is much older, by several hundred > years. > > Cheers, > Daniel. Both copyrights and patents are monopolies on ideas, just a different way of expressing the idea. Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). However, the way that it is implemented (see the various countries that have different ways) and then manipulated (see how companies will patent certain things in different ways in different places)
Ways of overcoming this manipulation has been licensing, shortening the term, tightening what can be patented. However, the expansion of what can be patented from a chemical process to a chemical for use in the body then expanding the term for this particular type a chemical patent etc is what is wrong. Also, patenting a plant. but it is big money. Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
