Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending

[Stefan Monnier]

Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC isPatent-Pending]

> Have you noticed that many of the large patent portfolios are owned by[color=blue]
> universities these days?[/color]

Oh yes.
[color=blue]
> This is how they're able to pay their researchers.[/color]

Well, not quite yet (after all, it's still a fairly recent development),
but it's becoming one of the largest source of income indeed.
[color=blue]
> They used to do it mostly with government grants, but since the
> government has scaled back on this, they needed to find alternate sources
> of funds.[/color]

And that's a major problem, of course.
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I.e. the question is not just "do patents increase research" but also "what
> > kind of research does it increase".[/color]
> Do you really think that *patents* are what spur this?[/color]

No, I'm not that naive ;-)
[color=blue]
> I think commercialism in general is what does it.[/color]

But patents make it more so.


Stefan

[Rahul Dhesi]

Re: The patent process

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> writes:
[color=blue]
>But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of the
>drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of being
>mature.[/color]
[color=blue]
>Patents are a two-edged sword.[/color]

Notice how all the serious flaws in the entire patent system are being
defended on the basis of one rather narrow exception.
--
Rahul

[Chris Kwan]

Re: The patent process

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote in message news:<barmar-B185E4.08511112 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>...[color=blue]
> In article <2gd0dtF1ajqaU2 @uni-berlin.de>,
> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.o rg> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
> > "mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
> > opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.[/color]
>
> But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of the
> drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of being
> mature.
>
> Patents are a two-edged sword.[/color]

I disagree here. Patent is virtually a western invention with less
than 300 yrs of history if I am correct. The easterners created many
inventions and shared many ideas openly by making available the text,
including pasta and making of paper and silk. Of course one would
argue that only limited people may have accessed to these text so in a
way is a barrier. But the fact still remains many inventions
particularly in medicine were tested and challeged by a series of
trial and error in the past. Many modern medicine particularly those
that look for active elements were sourced from ancient manuscripts
for example, resistance to malaria ?

There was this story about how some chinese doctors found some
medicinal herbs that can cure this during Moa days but because of
politics then they could not publish in the west. These doctors were
reading an old manuscript about a plant that grow in rivers and used
this to provide the active ingredient. US Army wanted this but again
because of politics could not obtain the drug but later found out that
in fact the same plant is also found in US etc. There was also the
story of first medical examiner book (for autopsy)from China more than
2000 years written by a famous examiner in his days. The knowledge
there provided the basis for many details of poison and how these can
be detected etc. Do they have patents then ? Nope, but they did have
an apprentice system and knowledge were handed down this way much like
Kung Fu. Did this help to promote new art ? Yeap. Did this increase
the cost of medicine by R & D ? Nope and doctors then were poor as you
know as the chinese medicine looks at prevention rather than cure. BTW
until today no western technology can unravel the art of acupunture
and how it works though and obviously no patents either. There were
many theories and if they can't be explained then its fail the western
standard I guess.

CK

[Barry Margolin]

Re: The patent process

In article <b8760489.04051 22223.56fd141a@ posting.google. com>,
khkwan@yahoo.co m (Chris Kwan) wrote:
[color=blue]
> I disagree here. Patent is virtually a western invention with less
> than 300 yrs of history if I am correct. The easterners created many
> inventions and shared many ideas openly by making available the text,
> including pasta and making of paper and silk. Of course one would
> argue that only limited people may have accessed to these text so in a
> way is a barrier. But the fact still remains many inventions
> particularly in medicine were tested and challeged by a series of
> trial and error in the past. Many modern medicine particularly those
> that look for active elements were sourced from ancient manuscripts
> for example, resistance to malaria ?[/color]

Patents are indeed a relatively recent invention, but that may be
because they're only a recent need. Hundreds of years ago, many of the
inventions like the ones you mentioned were necessities of life. It
doesn't take much encouragement to develop technologies that make life
possible, but improvements and conveniences are a different matter.

Also, because travel was harder and the population smaller, communities
were much smaller. Craftsmen mostly worked for themselves and sold to
their local communities, so competition was not a problem. If someone
hundreds of miles away copied your invention it didn't matter to you,
because his customers were not potential customers of yours.

It has also been argued that one of the reasons why the US became the
source of so much technology development in the 19th and 20th centuries
is because of our patent system. Yes, there has always been invention,
but the rate over the past couple of centuries in the west has been a
quantum leap beyond previous times. Some of this can be attributed to a
general "industriou s spirit" of Americans, as well as developments
necessary to open up our frontiers (guns, railroads). Unfortunately,
it's difficult to tell the precise cause-effect relationships -- it's
not possible to perform a controlled experiment to see what would happen
in a country just like the US but without our patent system.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit .edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[Rahul Dhesi]

Re: The patent process

Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> writes:
[color=blue]
>It has also been argued that one of the reasons why the US became the
>source of so much technology development in the 19th and 20th centuries
>is because of our patent system....[/color]

It has also been argued that the more productive and advanced an economy
gets, the stroger the pro-patent-system lobby becomes, and the stronger
the patent system gets.

The same is true of copyrights and trade marks.
--
Rahul

[23 Skiddoo !]

Re: The patent process

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

..[color=blue]
> It has also been argued that the more productive and advanced an economy
> gets, the stroger the pro-patent-system lobby becomes, and the stronger
> the patent system gets.
>
> The same is true of copyrights and trade marks.[/color]

of course, because at that point the country no longer wants to *encourage*
the sole inventor -- that would be a disturbance. it wants to limit
change -- and assigning long term patents is a way of limiting
innovation...wh ich is what a mature country would naturally want to do.

This is all part of the Europeanization of American.

First they invade us with IKEA stores -- gradually infusing a cutrate
Bauhaus ethic into our apartments and dorm rooms. The next step is
government sponsored hashish programs.

--
W '04 !

[Stefan Monnier]

Re: The patent process

> It has also been argued that one of the reasons why the US became the[color=blue]
> source of so much technology development in the 19th and 20th centuries
> is because of our patent system. Yes, there has always been invention,[/color]

Don't know about the 19th century, but many people explain the success of
the US in technology R&D to massive amounts of direct government funding
(much higher in proportion than European states).


Stefan

[Chuck Szmanda]

Re: The patent process

You are not correct. The Venetian Patent Act was enacted by the Venetian
Senate in 1474. Here is a part of that ordinance:

We have among us men of great genius, apt to invent and discover ingenious
devices... Now, if provisions were made for the works and devices discovered
by such persons, so that others who may see them could not build them and
take the inventor's honor [sic] away, more men would then apply their
genius, would discover, and would build devices of great utility to our
commonwealth.


Gilfillan, S.C. (1964), Invention and the Patent System , Materials Relating
to Continuing Studies of Technology, Economic Growth, and the Variability of
Private Investment, Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States,
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), p. 11.

"Chris Kwan" <khkwan@yahoo.c om> wrote in message
news:b8760489.0 405122223.56fd1 41a@posting.goo gle.com...[color=blue]
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote in message[/color]
news:<barmar-B185E4.08511112 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>...[color=blue][color=green]
> > In article <2gd0dtF1ajqaU2 @uni-berlin.de>,
> > Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.o rg> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
> > > "mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
> > > opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.[/color]
> >
> > But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of the
> > drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of being
> > mature.
> >
> > Patents are a two-edged sword.[/color]
>
> I disagree here. Patent is virtually a western invention with less
> than 300 yrs of history if I am correct. The easterners created many
> inventions and shared many ideas openly by making available the text,
> including pasta and making of paper and silk. Of course one would
> argue that only limited people may have accessed to these text so in a
> way is a barrier. But the fact still remains many inventions
> particularly in medicine were tested and challeged by a series of
> trial and error in the past. Many modern medicine particularly those
> that look for active elements were sourced from ancient manuscripts
> for example, resistance to malaria ?
>
> There was this story about how some chinese doctors found some
> medicinal herbs that can cure this during Moa days but because of
> politics then they could not publish in the west. These doctors were
> reading an old manuscript about a plant that grow in rivers and used
> this to provide the active ingredient. US Army wanted this but again
> because of politics could not obtain the drug but later found out that
> in fact the same plant is also found in US etc. There was also the
> story of first medical examiner book (for autopsy)from China more than
> 2000 years written by a famous examiner in his days. The knowledge
> there provided the basis for many details of poison and how these can
> be detected etc. Do they have patents then ? Nope, but they did have
> an apprentice system and knowledge were handed down this way much like
> Kung Fu. Did this help to promote new art ? Yeap. Did this increase
> the cost of medicine by R & D ? Nope and doctors then were poor as you
> know as the chinese medicine looks at prevention rather than cure. BTW
> until today no western technology can unravel the art of acupunture
> and how it works though and obviously no patents either. There were
> many theories and if they can't be explained then its fail the western
> standard I guess.
>
> CK[/color]

[Alun]

Re: The patent process

"Chuck Szmanda" <cszmanda@earth link.net> wrote in
news:Z%epc.6282 $zO3.2621@newsr ead2.news.atl.e arthlink.net:
[color=blue]
> You are not correct. The Venetian Patent Act was enacted by the
> Venetian Senate in 1474. Here is a part of that ordinance:
>
> We have among us men of great genius, apt to invent and discover
> ingenious devices... Now, if provisions were made for the works and
> devices discovered by such persons, so that others who may see them
> could not build them and take the inventor's honor [sic] away, more men
> would then apply their genius, would discover, and would build devices
> of great utility to our commonwealth.
>
>
> Gilfillan, S.C. (1964), Invention and the Patent System , Materials
> Relating to Continuing Studies of Technology, Economic Growth, and the
> Variability of Private Investment, Joint Economic Committee, Congress
> of the United States, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office),
> p. 11.
>
> "Chris Kwan" <khkwan@yahoo.c om> wrote in message
> news:b8760489.0 405122223.56fd1 41a@posting.goo gle.com...[color=green]
>> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mi t.edu> wrote in message
>> news:<barmar-B185E4.08511112 052004@comcast. ash.giganews.co m>...[color=darkred]
>> > In article <2gd0dtF1ajqaU2 @uni-berlin.de>,
>> > Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.o rg> wrote:
>> >
>> > > We might be better off, overall, if money was being spent on the
>> > > "mature" drugs, that cost less, and that are better understood, as
>> > > opposed to money getting thrust at the expensive new ones.
>> >
>> > But if the patent process didn't exist, we might not have many of
>> > the drugs in the first place, so they'll never get to the point of
>> > being mature.
>> >
>> > Patents are a two-edged sword.[/color]
>>
>> I disagree here. Patent is virtually a western invention with less
>> than 300 yrs of history if I am correct. The easterners created many
>> inventions and shared many ideas openly by making available the text,
>> including pasta and making of paper and silk. Of course one would
>> argue that only limited people may have accessed to these text so in a
>> way is a barrier. But the fact still remains many inventions
>> particularly in medicine were tested and challeged by a series of
>> trial and error in the past. Many modern medicine particularly those
>> that look for active elements were sourced from ancient manuscripts
>> for example, resistance to malaria ?
>>
>> There was this story about how some chinese doctors found some
>> medicinal herbs that can cure this during Moa days but because of
>> politics then they could not publish in the west. These doctors were
>> reading an old manuscript about a plant that grow in rivers and used
>> this to provide the active ingredient. US Army wanted this but again
>> because of politics could not obtain the drug but later found out that
>> in fact the same plant is also found in US etc. There was also the
>> story of first medical examiner book (for autopsy)from China more than
>> 2000 years written by a famous examiner in his days. The knowledge
>> there provided the basis for many details of poison and how these can
>> be detected etc. Do they have patents then ? Nope, but they did have
>> an apprentice system and knowledge were handed down this way much like
>> Kung Fu. Did this help to promote new art ? Yeap. Did this increase
>> the cost of medicine by R & D ? Nope and doctors then were poor as you
>> know as the chinese medicine looks at prevention rather than cure. BTW
>> until today no western technology can unravel the art of acupunture
>> and how it works though and obviously no patents either. There were
>> many theories and if they can't be explained then its fail the western
>> standard I guess.
>>
>> CK[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

Less than 300 years would refer to the US, I suppose, but seeing as the
country itself is less than 300 years old that's hardly surprising. Of
course, the real origin of US patent law is the English patent law,
beginning with the Statute of Monopolies, signed into law by King James I
in 1623.

Even then, there were patents issued in England before there was a patent
law, at the prerogative of the king. The patent that was retrospectively
numbered as number 1 was issued in 1617, but in fact some patents for
inventions were issued in England in the 1500s.

The term 'patent' originally referred to any grant of a monopoly from the
king. The Statute of Monopolies was actually a reform limiting patents to
only patents of invention. Before that, a patent could be granted to limit
sale of a particular staple commodity to one vendor in a particular
locality, which was a form of patronage. There was controversy over patents
to sell salt, I think, leading to reform of the law.

The original wording of the law listed certain types of invention as
patentable, including compositions of gunpowder, and then added any 'method
of manufacture', wording that persisted in England for centuries.

Prior to 1853, it was necessary to go through several government
departments to get a UK patent, and only then was the UK Patent Office
created, so technically the US Patent Office is older.