Hey, guys should not we take this to social? It is becoming less and less discussing.
Chris > M. Fioretti wrote: > > > You can do it with small material things which can be built with > > *very* little space and money, or in "environments" where, again > > unlike software, everybody plays by the same rules. But you can't > > "release early and often" new fuels, cars, microprocessors, or the > > extremely complex machinery needed to build even one single working > > prototype. Not when you want to actually build and sell many units. > > Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive > than cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive model > (some new fuels are cheaper, others aren't). They still grow progress > in incremental steps. It's also interesting to note that new fules, > cars and microprocessors also don't have the secretive model you > described, and this lack of secrecy or monopoly has been the source of > inmsense growth in new fuels, cars and microprocessors. This has been > the case for as long as there have been projects that require high > expenditures (several hundred years, beginning with large telescopes > for astronomy). And they have all been done without secrecy or > monopoly, and they have all grown inmensely because of the lack of > secrecy and monopoly. > > So yes, actually, it definitely scales, all the way up to the largest > projects ever made. The thing about using patents to "protect" > invention is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields, most > notably the pharmaceutical industry (and the pharmaceutical industry > uses labs that are cheaper than particle accelerators or fusion > reactors). It is a lot less common that it might seem at first. But > truth is, most discovery is not done in the big-bang model. Not in the > past, and not today. > > > > Historically, yes. It was a simpler world, with simpler technology > > to discover. > > 1) Proportionally, telescopes and other technology of the time was > still quite very expensive. > > 2) What I said still applies to the modern world. > > > Again, it would be wonderful if all inventions could happen in the > > way you describe. > > They can. > > And I'm sure that the benefit that might be derived from the > finnancial incentive is far outweight by the slow down in discovery > due to government imposed monopolies. > > > And I surely want to see a world where as much > > scientific research as possible is funded by governments and other > > non-profit institutions. for the common good. > > Don't confuse the small-step development model with aulterism. > Perfectly selfish companies can bring about discovery without patents, > and earn money. And indeed, discovery is faster. A good example of > this is, ironicaly, in the computer industry. Microprocessors are not > packed with patents. Nothing prohibits you from creating a > microprocessor that copies the x86 design, inspite of the fact that it > took time, effort and money to make. But you don't see the > microprocessor industry stagnant. In fact, you see the opposite, it's > seen fantastic growth. > > Now, what would happen if (say) Intel had been granted a monopoly on > the x86 chip model? Then AMD would not have been able to compete with > them by copying the model, which would have removed a motivator for > Intell to improve the technology further. And today microprocessors > would not be nearly as advanced as they are today. > > The same holds true for cars, new fuels, and many other things that > require heavy investment. > > > But I am convinced that > > *real* patents, as they were meant to be, would NOT hurt or slow > > down that process, and stimulate a lot of activity in the meantime. > > I have no doubt that if Intel had gotten a patent on the x86 chip > design, that would have severely hurt the development of > microprocessors. > > Likewise, I've seen sound medical research been hurt bye either > patents or patent-like provisions from NAFTA. There was a case where > an American company found a very expensive, and accurate method of > detecting a type of cancer (I forget the details). A Canadian company > found a method that was only about 80-90% accurate (based on looking > at proteins, I remember that bit, it was an indirect method) but was > less than 1/10th the cost. The American company successfully sued the > Canadian under NAFTA provisions and forced it to stop. Notice, this > was a completely different system of diagnosing the same illness. > > I can't believe that this sort of system stimulates progress. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
