Richard Dobson wrote:
On 19/09/2011 15:21, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
..
The "20 minutes per application" might refer to a specific step,
Probably the pre-filtering to eliminate the umpteen patents for free
energy machines, teleportation devices, anti-gravity drives,
kitchen-table fusion reactors and $2 solutions to world hunger. The
20mins would be to allow for the possibility there might be something
in it. I'm still hoping.
Richard Dobson
Very simple:
Our economy is really based on IP, in some areas. Think of the
pharmaceutical industry in Britain. Everybody could copy any medicament,
as long as the composition is known. This ind of industry simply would
brea down without IP, because it is quite easy to copy a chemical
composition if you now it.
Who would < any > development of new drugs (and perform the costly
tests) if there would be no ind of protection at all? Nobody, because
after some good wok you would have to file fo bankruptcy, because you
are not a bank and nobody would bail you out... :-D
Think also of cars, planes, machines, everything. It is much harder to
copy complex systems anyway, but it is even better if you own some
patents which protect your innovations in the motor, gear, hybid motors,
crash protection and everything else...
Therefore, I think there have been and there are very good reasons to
protect people or companies doing innovations. (As everybody knows,
patents are published. Therefore there is less incentive to hide
innovations from others, which is a good thing. )
Examples of patent abuse or patent trolls (sometimes so-called "patent
trolls") are what you read about in the press, but maybe some areas just
work as they should?
Copyright:
In spite of all fashionable theories in certain circles (often insider
groups with a very homogeneous opinion on topics like "copyright" and
"patents"), I don't think it would be especially good for the economy to
abolish the concept of "soft" ownership. Otherwise, accept that every
Chinese company can install a "free" copy of Windows on any PC. I maybe
should co-found some company which does some 1:1 clones of Apple
computers (high quality, of course!) or iPads (you can get the parts, no
secrets here... :-D ), and accept that people can download the latest
Hollywood movie for nothing.
However, if I would be too successful with this little reform of a big
part of the world economy (at least China should support my position!
;-), I probably would become a CIA and/or MI6 target, and I am not sure
about if I want this.
Thinking about a 2nd time, I won't propose all these reforms which are
supposedly good for consumers, but very bad for certain
industries/economies, and therefore citizens. (The same conflict
exists with taxes. Nobody wants to pay taxes. If everybody pays less
taxes than he/she should, the state probably will go bankrupt. I won't
specify countries I < maybe > had in mind... 8-) )
I hope I could introduce a few and very simple arguments why something
like "Intellectual Property" should exist. (I can't imagine a modern
economy could work without any form of IP. Innovators would be
marginalized, and even could not compete with the copyists who don't
have to spend on development. Therefore, companies doing some R&D would
have to book R&D costs as a direct loss, IMO.)
We probably should look where the IP system works, and where it needs
some reform. Reforms are difficult if somebody will lose something, and
will fight against.
As a musician, you probably have to accept that most of your recordings
are done for "nothing", are a kind of promotion etc. In many cases,
other people might still earn money from a recoding, just not the
participating musicians. In this case, the IP/copyright system looks
broken, and maybe we should look for some updates.
Coming back to the thread topic: The first posting about the supposed
"absurdity" of a "patent" was uninformed, as well as any claim that a
serious patent examiner is judging a patent within "20 minutes".
I have only referrend to one personal experience to show the absurdity
of such "claims", because nobody can write 25 pages within 20 minutes.
Unless you copied 25 pages after a Google search , so to speak... :-D
I don't care for some hearsaying from some university patent expert Mr.
Malham maybe has spoken to, because my personal experience is very
different. (And beside of this, I don't care too much about this. But IF
you bash the patent system, please do this in an informed way! :-) )
Best,
Stefan
P.S.: The next question is why you should not copy big parts of your
thesis, if copying is sooo effective and efficient. I mean, you can save
a lot of time, efforts...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20110919/cc02c435/attachment.html>
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
