On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:38, M. Fioretti wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera > > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > Chris BONDE wrote: > > >Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their > > >idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). > > > > That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. > > As far as I know, it indeed *is*. I (government): > > 1) make sure that everybody can learn all the details of new > technologies by *forcing* inventors to disclose what they did. > 2) keep inventors motivated to keep inventing while giving away by > granting them a temporary monopoly. > > > The intention of patents was to encourage people to work on > > developing ideas with the promise that, in return, they would be > > granted a temporary monopoly. > > No. Without patents people would have invented and sold anyway, just > keeping the secret on how they did stuff. Meaning that their monopoly, > without the patent papers which are mandated just to share knowledge > as *early* as possible, could have lasted even longer than a patent > duration.
Patents were a means of breaking the monopoly of the Guilds, and by forcing their hidden knowledge out into the open, it gave various unspeakable forms of politician, eg, the Kings of England, a way of extracting further moneys. It also sped up the diffusion of knowledge, but that was merely a secondary effect. Breaking the Guilds and ensuring they couldn't get their act together was a more major part of it - now you have the patent system in the sworn service of the Guilds again. > > Marco Wesley Parish -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
