[VAC] Re: LED lighting. patents.

[Bob Kiger]

>At 09:28 AM 4/18/01 -0700, you wrote:
>I just slapped my own wrist for going off topic, but
>oftentimes the reason why things are so expensive
>(i.e. LED's or pharmaceuticals) is that the company
>that developed the technology has to recoup the US
>patent fees, and the Research and Development costs.

Sometimes, when the public interest is vital, the government uses it's powers to promulgate new technologies.  The Genome Project is one such example.  In that case the government literally went into competition with private industry to avoid scurilous patents.  For example (in the 20's & 30's) RCA filed and lost 165 patent interference cases against the true inventor of TV.  This set back the launch of television at least a decade.

Many promising technologies die on the vine because the government does not use it's substantial powers to encourage widespread awareness of the benefits and distribution of these products.  These days Conservation is imperative.  There ought to be a US Department of Conservation.

Why should low wattage light bulbs cost more than high wattage bulbs?
How come so many Americans go to Canada or Mexico to buy their prescriptions?
Why are hardly any bicycles produced in America? (most from Taiwan)?
Why is a mature technology like "solar" still so costly that it's a small market.

It would take only a moderate reduction in demand to counter our energy shortage.  I'm sure glad no one company has a patent on gas :)

Every Airstream owner should be proud that they are doing their part, because of the basic elegance of our (full or part time) habitats.  But I, for one, am tired of having to pay a premium just because I want to conserve.  US Social Engineering needs improvement.
Bob