On 10/14/05, Doug Riddle <doug_riddle at yahoo.com> wrote: > > Consider Universities when discussing patents, > licenses, and copyrights, and plant variety > protections (PVP)from an Intellectual Property point > of view.
The article I linked to touched on the Uni perspective. In it they voice their concerns on the growing difficulty in their ability to obtain permission to do research with genes covered by patents. 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? IMHO this is what the State and Federal Governments "should" be used for. But they seem more focused on regulating controls and servicing corporations. 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. I don't think that patents should be incentives. Fake value, greedy reasoning, and controls everyone else's ability to build upon common knowledge. Especially with un-common knowledge like research the ability to grow upon ideas and techniques shouldn't be hampered by unnecessary controls. What happens when our children want to use our works to further their knowledge? They might have to wait for the paperwork to get approved, or worse get denied permission. As they > develop the market, the product and market became more > attractive to the big boys. > The big boys are part of the problem. Of course they want to purchase patents they are a right to control value. I am sure everyone remembers the head Microsoft genious saying, "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. ...The solution is patenting as much as we can. A future startup with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose. That price might be high. Established companies have an interest in excluding future competitors." -Bill Gates(May 16, 1991) 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. I hope that researchers are working to solve problems (I do understand the need for monetary compensations). The magnitude of the problem will raise or lower the demand for the solution or the demand for a solution to be found( i.e. funded). With > the license in place the small company's market is > protected and our farmers get the fungicide. They get to purchase it. Why can't they just make it? Maybe its not possible now, maybe it wouldn't even be practical for most in the future, but IMO it should be a possibility for those who want it to solve their problem and are willing to go through the troubles of learning how. The disservice is done by withholding knowledge and giving control of that knowledge's use to a corporation who may use it against anyone who trespasses onto their market. 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. Or more likely buy the patent from the little guy and lobby to extend the length of patent laws thus controlling value and competition. Hooray, the good guys win one. If making money is winning, woot. That is a simple case, but that is essentially what a > patent, license, and/or copyright is intended to do. I think the intent is reasonable I just don't trust the corporations to use them as they are intended. 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." The disclosure of an innovation required by a patent is very costly to an inventor whose innovation is difficult to imitate or reverse engineer. To the inventor whose innovation is relatively easy to reverse engineer, the protection of patent laws is essential for commercial success. To the inventor who wishes to keep his invention a secret there is nothing we can do. 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? Warranty, liability, and insurance is a whole other can of worms. Lots of which might not be as complicated if we didn't have patents. 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. There are several countries without patent laws who's innovations per capita are proportional to countries with patent laws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://brlug.net/pipermail/general_brlug.net/attachments/20051017/de073f8b/attachment.htm
