Karen, I believe the later Edison was more into patents than invention. Apparently, he would hire newly graduated scientists and as they found out things he would patent them - in his name. My impression is that he was a patent factory rather than an inventor in later years.
A patent is a legal privilege and should be done away with. It's the way to turn a $50 idea into a $50,000 "invention". For more important inventions requiring skills and knowledge to bring them to fruition, then the inventor will always have an edge over anyone else. It seems to me that in the highly competitive automobile industry, there isn't much attention paid to patents. I think they exchange with each other. In things like pharmaceuticals, I understand they patent anything that might conceivably be useful in the future. They spend more money promoting their drugs than they do in research. If they lost their patent protection they would not be such giants - with so much power (they have a lobbyist for every two politicians in Congress). Who would do research, if they lost patent protection? Probably the universities who could happily meld their practical success to teaching advantage. New procedures would take the place of present patents if they were abolished. More importantly, a company like Microsoft wouldn't achieve a present power that rests entirely on patents and copyright.Though the Internet is eating into that power. A Microsoft spokesman said there were 500 sites where operating systems Windows 2000 and XP could be obtained illegally. MS used a system with XP whereby a new owner had to contact MS to get the software activated on one machine (plus a portable).. You could use the software for 30 days then contacting MS was mandatory, or your operating system went dead. A cracker proceeded to change the program slightly so each time you booted the machine, the activation period began again, I suppose effectively circumventing the activation procedure. Corporations wouldn't go along with this nonsense, so a corporation licence doesn't have activation. So corporation copies of XP are all over the Internet. We should remember that the most successful word processor in the beginning was WordStar. It wasn't protected at all and most youngsters used copies rather than buying it. Nevertheless, some 3 million copies of WordStar were sold. When the kids went to work, the word processor they knew was WordStar, so companies bought the program. Then, a new edition came out - WordStar 2000 - and it was protected. The protection stopped the kids from using it, programmers could no longer easily produce "plug ins" that would make WordStar more user friendly. WordStar was dead in the water - and never recovered. "Open source ' software is now making inroads. This is free, but companies make their money with manuals and service. Companies are also getting interested in using a free operating system - Linux. Linux is getting more sophisticated all the time and Linux applications are getting more plentiful. So, there are holes, but MS has been able to buy up companies that looked dangerous. Also, they are not above using their weight to knock out dangerous competition. Geoworks produced excellent software, then came up with a multitasking operating system. Computer companies were apparently quietly told that if they used any Geoworks' software they wouldn't get the wholesale discount on Windows. They would have to pay retail. That was the end of Geoworks, though I've heard they are making a small comeback with portable systems. Any advantage of patents is minor compared with the opportunity to stand stride further progress. I understand a British charitable organization is mocking the process by attempting to patent fish and chips. And so it goes. Harry --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Karen wrote: >Ray & Chris: I m not very versed in patents, but found a historical >footnote interesting, at least for US implications and enduring >impact: the Wright Brothers spent a lot of time and effort filing patents >on their airplane, trying to monopolize development. They say that the >Wright Brothers spent most of their time after Kitty Hawk filing patents, >not continuing with their invention. > > > >This is a gross simplification, but over time, this patenting of airplane >technology became so restrictive that it was finally abandoned lock stock >and barrel, so that in the ongoing years of great US innovations in >aeronautical design and technology, US companies provided a lot of free >R&D for their European competition. One extreme led to a different >consequence than originally intended. > >Isn t it interesting how the actions of a few individuals at a crossroads >of history, science and politics can influence history, if not change it? > > > >Bush and the fundamentalists are at such a crossroads of medical research >today. US scientists defecting to the UK to work is the least of it. > > > >My father, who lost one kidney to cancer and a younger cousin with Type I >diabetes, might benefit someday by progress in stem cell research into >organ replacement, so the debate about this is personal for me. > >Karen ****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.391 / Virus Database: 222 - Release Date: 9/19/2002
