<devil's advocate> >From your example, those who support the patent system the way it is currently setup would argue that the iris recognition system would likely never have been invented unless the patent was there to protect the invention of the company that invested the resources in R&D to create it. Of course there will be more innovation on the idea once the patent expires and more people are able to make use of the idea. </devil's advocate>
Personally, I don't really buy that argument. I just don't think that there is any real data that backs it up. And there are plenty of examples where people have created something just to make it, without the promise of patents or copyrights to protect them (GNU/Linux being the prime example). Sure in todays corporate climate there may be many things that wouldn't happen without the protection of patents, but when does too much protection become stiffling? I don't know the answer, but I think whatever it is, we have already passed it by. Dan .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
