Consider Universities when discussing patents, licenses, and copyrights, and plant variety protections (PVP)from an Intellectual Property point of view.
The AgCenter is a Land Grant University established in part for the purpose of conducting research to improve the lives of the citizens of Louisiana. Take a real example. We have a blight that is almost entirely a southern Louisiana problem, and in all likelyhood will remain a localized problem to to unique conditions in the climate, land, and crops involved. A doctor developes a chemical that can fight this form of blight that only affects crops in the southern portion of Louisiana. He has a patent, but we own most of it. We want this fungicide out for our farmers and gardeners in the state to have for their needs. In fact, our charter requires us to get this chemical out to our citizens, but we don't have the money or facilities to make it. We need the free market economy for that. So how do we accomplish this goal? The market isn't large enough to interest a DOW or Monsanto. We know, we offered it to them at a steep discount. We are not allowed to make a profit, but we are not allowed to throw away what is essentially the property of the citizens of Louisiana either. It puts in some real unioque situations sometimes. Regardless, Monsanto wasn't interested if we gave it to them. So, we find a small company and give them a license for the chemical at a discount, they afford to buy the patent. As a University, and a 501C, we can help them get grants and low interest loans by partnering with them so we can get the stuff on the market. The patent and subsequent license provides the small company the incentive to make the product. As they develop the market, the product and market became more attractive to the big boys. A going concern turning a profit is much more interesting to a Monsanto or Dow than a chemical formula we hoped someone might want to buy to use against a blight only Louisiana has. With the license in place the small company's market is protected and our farmers get the fungicide. In a few years, the big boys can get in on it, but most likely he will work with us to see them the patent and license his technology before the patent expires and move on to the next new product no one wanted to produce. Hooray, the good guys win one. The doctor makes some money to continue his research, we recovered what we spent developing the chemical, and the small company is employing forty or fifty people at decent wages, making some money itself, the blight problem is under control, and our farmers are making money again. That is a simple case, but that is essentially what a patent, license, and/or copyright is intended to do. By offering exclusive rights for a set period these tools encourage developement of new products by protecting the market and allowing the developers and producers to enjoy profit from their work. By giving these tools an expiration date, they are designed to provide the public access when the protections expire. The patent is particularly valuable because it has to provide details that "any reasonable person should be able to use to receate the product." Any tool can be abused, and these have been on two fronts, one is due to the constant and consistant extention of the period of protection by congress, and secondly by the changes we are seeing in way the law in general is being used today. Heretofor our system of doing business was primarily contract based. We made agreements and stuck to them. As products and services grow more complex we are changing to a tort-based business model. As a citizen or business when I buy a car, machine, chemical, product, or service, I assume the maker did due dilligence to be sure that this product does not hurt me or anyone else. The warranty serves as a contract, but generally does not cover my expenses if someone is hurt because of a design flaw. For that I have to resort to a tort case. Now the patent, license, and warranty come into play. Was I violating the warranty by using the product incorrectly, or does the patent indicate a flaw that the producer should have either corrected or warned me of? Is the producer licensing this technology? What sort of libility does the patent own have it they are other than the producer of the product? In an ideal world we might not need these things, but they sure come in handy when you are trying to get a product to market. Doug --- Eric G Ortego <ericortego at gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/9/05, Dustin Puryear <dpuryear at usa.net> wrote: > > > > Patents and copyrights have different objectives. > You can't really lump > > both > > into a single argument. Patents serve to expose > trade secrets so that they > > aren't lost if an inventor dies or a company goes > belly-up and also > > releasing new ideas into the wild after some set > time, while copyrights > > serve to deter, well, the ability to copy a given > work. > > > > On Patents: > They might serve that purpose but they are actually > a grant of a property > right. > And if you will, the right of shoot to kill If I see > you on my land, should > you "choose" to trespass. > > My grandfather, who was a fisherman most all of his > life, applied for a > patent on an innovative invention of his (called it > the ding-a-ling). He ran > trout lines when fishing bayous, and floating lines > when in lakes. His idea > was forged from the mess that would occur when > picking up the lines and > allowing the hooks to entangle themselves within the > string. Instead of > using some of the costly devices that would let you > slide each hook into a > sort of hook closet on a rail trying to keep the > stringer all nicely wound, > he created thousands of little hook sheaths made > with pieces of tube and > drinking straws. Simply slide the hook into the tube > then push the straw > into place to secure the hook in. This way he could > just throw the entire > stringer into a bucket and hang the hooks on the > edge. When re-running the > lines he just had to find one end and run the line, > un-sheath the hooks > while baiting. Didn't hook himself nearly as often, > he said. His patent was > denied because of existing patents. Seeing as how he > had spent a lifetime > fishing(he was about 60 when he made the first > bunch) without having ever > seen such a thing I conclude that it had to be > original, innovative, and the > previous idea certainly wasn't in the wild. > > > I'm on the fence when it comes to software patents. > I certainly see an abuse > > of patents right now. > > > How about in the future? Gene patenting! Yay... > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html > FTA: > "While this does not quite boil down to [the patent > holders] owning our > genes these rights exclude us from using our genes > for those purposes that > are covered in the patent," > > > Perhaps we should shorten software patents to > > something that works better > > > > Like 0. > > > (But I certainly support the idea of a patent in > most other realms.) > > > > Why should a clean room implementation of something > similar be in the > violation of such a property right? > Why then when the patented device/idea isn't being > manufactured, sold, or > talked about? I suppose this lends to the defence of > a clean room > implementation but it I don't think it prevents the > holder from wasting > their(enemies?) time and resources. > > Patents are becoming the loaded weapons. > 1) patent > 2) wait > 3) sue & Profit! > > Why should some patent government decide what is and > isn't innovative? > How could they even know? I don't think that a think > tank like Google could > do an accurate enough job. > > The way I see it patents serve to advance greed. > Money is only worth what value we give it. IMHO time > and knowledge are > priceless. > I think that we are causing wastes of time and > promoting limits to knowledge > by allowing today's scientists, educators, and > craftsmen to burden their > successors with monetary values on archaic theory, > ideas, and tools. > I don't like patents at all, I understand the > reasoning behind them I simply > think they are bad ideas. > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > General at brlug.net > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > Warmest Regards, Doug Riddle http://www.dougriddle.com "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." - Ambrose Bierce
