No. It does reduce profitability, though, since it increases outlay, unless you own the Patent.
Advertisement
by Dododecapod » Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:42 pm
by Hydesland » Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:43 pm
Concordeia wrote:Wait, so the current patent system does NOT restrict the use of technology by other individuals/companies?
by Concordeia » Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:50 pm
Hydesland wrote:Concordeia wrote:Wait, so the current patent system does NOT restrict the use of technology by other individuals/companies?
The current patent system puts the use of the technology by other individuals at the discretion of the patent holder (subject to certain constraints), all I'm saying is that there are some economists out there, like you, who only want patent holders to be entitled to a return or percentage of profit/equity for each company that uses such technology but do not want to allow them 'monopolistic' control over the intellectual property.
Falkasia wrote:Concordeia wrote:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block missile spam! And I'm freakin early PMT! :mad: :(
I gotta say it. First time I read through this, I could have sworn it said something like this:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block spam missiles!
I was like, "Who the hell are you fighting... or more importantly, was your lunch meat laced?"
by Hydesland » Sat Oct 16, 2010 7:58 pm
Concordeia wrote:But wait, doesn't that mean that the patent holder can still withhold use of the technology?
How is that fair?
by Concordeia » Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:07 pm
Hydesland wrote:Concordeia wrote:But wait, doesn't that mean that the patent holder can still withhold use of the technology?
Yes.How is that fair?
What matters is what is best at motivating people to invest time, and often a great deal of money (often many small time inventors have to mortgage their house to see it through) to create new products or find new solutions to problems that will be of value to many individuals, allowing jobs and wealth to be created.
Falkasia wrote:Concordeia wrote:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block missile spam! And I'm freakin early PMT! :mad: :(
I gotta say it. First time I read through this, I could have sworn it said something like this:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block spam missiles!
I was like, "Who the hell are you fighting... or more importantly, was your lunch meat laced?"
by Concordeia » Sat Oct 16, 2010 8:44 pm
Falkasia wrote:Concordeia wrote:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block missile spam! And I'm freakin early PMT! :mad: :(
I gotta say it. First time I read through this, I could have sworn it said something like this:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block spam missiles!
I was like, "Who the hell are you fighting... or more importantly, was your lunch meat laced?"
by Caninope » Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:22 pm
Concordeia wrote:Hydesland wrote:
Yes.
What matters is what is best at motivating people to invest time, and often a great deal of money (often many small time inventors have to mortgage their house to see it through) to create new products or find new solutions to problems that will be of value to many individuals, allowing jobs and wealth to be created.
But some people may be more quick to develop useful applications for the technology than the original inventor. I'm of the opinion that a technology will be integrated and developed by society faster if the technology is available to everyone right off the bat.
Agritum wrote:Arg, Caninope is Captain America under disguise. Everyone knows it.
Frisivisia wrote:Me wrote:Just don't. It'll get you a whole lot further in life if you come to realize you're not the smartest guy in the room, even if you probably are.
Because Caninope may be in that room with you.
Nightkill the Emperor wrote:Thankfully, we have you and EM to guide us to wisdom and truth, holy one. :p
Norstal wrote:What I am saying of course is that we should clone Caninope.
by Rolling squid » Sat Oct 16, 2010 9:47 pm
Hammurab wrote:An athiest doesn't attend mass, go to confession, or know a lot about catholicism. So basically, an athiest is the same as a catholic.
Post-Unity Terra wrote:Golly gosh, one group of out-of-touch rich white guys is apparently more in touch with the average man than the other group of out-of-touch rich white guys.
by Panzerjaeger » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:02 pm
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!
Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!
Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"
New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.
by Natapoc » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:04 pm
Panzerjaeger wrote:Not only should we get rid of the Patent system we should also club Intellectuals to death.
by Panzerjaeger » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:07 pm
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!
Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!
Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"
New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.
by MisanthropicPopulism » Sat Oct 16, 2010 10:29 pm
Hydesland wrote:Do Patents Stunt Technological Development?
No, it encourages such. There is much empirical evidence to suggest that the industrial revolution, and the rapid technological advance seen in the 20th century on the whole, was predicated largely on the strengthening of intellectual property rights.
by The Cat-Tribe » Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:32 pm
by Nazi Flower Power » Sat Oct 16, 2010 11:44 pm
Concordeia wrote:Huh...all this time I thought it was much more restrictive...
But wait, doesn't that mean that the patent holder can still withhold use of the technology? How is that fair? They still have complete control over the technology!
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:04 am
OMGeverynameistaken wrote:Depends, really. The present patent system does, I feel, stunt technology since you can copyright literally almost anything.
I believe a common example is:
Using an arrow to indicate what direction you should go in a video game. Owned by, if I remember right, Ubisoft.
So anybody who wants to point somebody in a certain direction in a video game has to pay Ubisoft for 'their' concept.
Another is the whole Microsoft/IE Flash debacle where a company threatened to sue Microsoft for using the idea of 'not having to click on something in order to activate it' in relation to Flash items in IE.
That sort of thing stunts development, because nobody wants to risk developing something only to get sued into oblivion because some guy owns the copyright for 'the use of rectangular advertisements'.
To my mind, a 'concept' shouldn't be copyrightable. A specific device, yes, a piece of code for a game, certainly, but the entire IDEA of using an arrow to point at something? No. Does not fly. The US government needs to take over the patent office again :\
by UnitedStatesOfAmerica- » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:07 am
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:09 am
greed and death wrote:Yes and No. the problem with current patent law is it is a one size fits all shoe. For mechanical things a 20 year patent before others may use your design to as a basis to improve upon your own is reasonable. Where as with software by the time 20 years have passed the 3d engine from a formerly state of the art game would only be considered worthy of making sprite cartoons. In this way no one is able to use others code to create soemthing new and more advanced.
Also drug patents need to reigned in, when people need a drug to live or lead a fulfilling life it is unconscionable to all companies to charge unreasonable prices for the drug. IT is about time the US take the approach of the rest of the world and work with drug companies to set reasonable prices for these drugs. I would then be open to giving them longer patent protection periods in exchange.
by Concordeia » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:19 am
Nazi Flower Power wrote:Concordeia wrote:Huh...all this time I thought it was much more restrictive...
But wait, doesn't that mean that the patent holder can still withhold use of the technology? How is that fair? They still have complete control over the technology!
Only until the patent expires. I don't see what the problem is.
Falkasia wrote:Concordeia wrote:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block missile spam! And I'm freakin early PMT! :mad: :(
I gotta say it. First time I read through this, I could have sworn it said something like this:Dammit, and I got accused of tech-wanking for using megawatt-scale free electron laser CIWS on my (nuclear powered) vessels to block spam missiles!
I was like, "Who the hell are you fighting... or more importantly, was your lunch meat laced?"
by Numerika » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:24 am
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:27 am
UnitedStatesOfAmerica- wrote:The real issue I see is people trying to patent and copyright ideas. In the past, you could only patent specific devices or copyright specific arrangements of words. These days, people are patenting techniques that have been around for hundreds of years or that are basic common sense. People are copyrighting phrases they did not invent and that predate even the US. It also used to be that copyrights only applied to a certain use of a phrase, now if you use the phrase for any purpose at all, you can be sued.
Copyright and Patent law have been changed by extremists to give all power to the rich and to take away the freedom of innovation from the masses by figuratively telling the masses, "You are only allowed to think what we tell you think."
A classic case is that of the abbreviation WWF. The World Wrestling Federation and the World WIldlife Fund came out at the same time. For awhile they had agreed to the rule that companies can use the abbreviation in different settings as long they did not conflict with each other. The World Wild LIfe Fund used it in the area of conservation, and World Wrestling Federation used it in the Context of wrestling only. They never crossed each other's paths.
The problem then came up that World Wildlife Fund claimed total and exclusive use of the WWF abbreviation in any and all sectors of society. The Courts in England ruled that the Fund had the right to ban all other people from using the abbreviation even when it was used in a different sector and this is what stifles innovation. At the rate it is going we will have to invent a new alphabet for people to create their abbreviations and acronyms from. That or change the law back to what it was originally intended to be in the USA.
If you say, "That's hot", Paris Hilton might sue you for copyright infringement. That is how ludricrous this has become.
by UnitedStatesOfAmerica- » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:43 am
The Cat-Tribe wrote:UnitedStatesOfAmerica- wrote:The real issue I see is people trying to patent and copyright ideas. In the past, you could only patent specific devices or copyright specific arrangements of words. These days, people are patenting techniques that have been around for hundreds of years or that are basic common sense. People are copyrighting phrases they did not invent and that predate even the US. It also used to be that copyrights only applied to a certain use of a phrase, now if you use the phrase for any purpose at all, you can be sued.
Copyright and Patent law have been changed by extremists to give all power to the rich and to take away the freedom of innovation from the masses by figuratively telling the masses, "You are only allowed to think what we tell you think."
A classic case is that of the abbreviation WWF. The World Wrestling Federation and the World WIldlife Fund came out at the same time. For awhile they had agreed to the rule that companies can use the abbreviation in different settings as long they did not conflict with each other. The World Wild LIfe Fund used it in the area of conservation, and World Wrestling Federation used it in the Context of wrestling only. They never crossed each other's paths.
The problem then came up that World Wildlife Fund claimed total and exclusive use of the WWF abbreviation in any and all sectors of society. The Courts in England ruled that the Fund had the right to ban all other people from using the abbreviation even when it was used in a different sector and this is what stifles innovation. At the rate it is going we will have to invent a new alphabet for people to create their abbreviations and acronyms from. That or change the law back to what it was originally intended to be in the USA.
If you say, "That's hot", Paris Hilton might sue you for copyright infringement. That is how ludricrous this has become.
Um. Almost every word of this is untrue (including your distorted account of the WWF trademark dispute arising from the wrestling groups admitted breach of the agreement with the Wildlife Fund).
Among things you might want to learn are: the concept of prior art; that copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases; that copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something; and copyright only protects "“original works of authorship.”
by The Cat-Tribe » Sun Oct 17, 2010 12:47 am
UnitedStatesOfAmerica- wrote:The Cat-Tribe wrote:
Um. Almost every word of this is untrue (including your distorted account of the WWF trademark dispute arising from the wrestling groups admitted breach of the agreement with the Wildlife Fund).
Among things you might want to learn are: the concept of prior art; that copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases; that copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something; and copyright only protects "“original works of authorship.”
The Wildlife Fund has claimed, successfully, that they can ban everyone from using the abbreviation WWF for all purposes, including those not associated with the Wildlife Fund's sphere of activities. That World Wrestling violated an agreement between the two does not negate this. If you use "WWF" as the name of your restaurant or your auto manufacturing plant you can be sued by the World Wildlife Fund even though you are not doing business in their sector of the economy.
This was the ultimate lesson of World Wildlife Fund vs World Wrestling Federation
by Nazi Flower Power » Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:44 pm
by Tekania » Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:00 am
Concordeia wrote:I've been wondering about the effects of patents on society. I understand that their primary purpose is to ensure the inventor of a new device or technique is properly credited and remunerated for his/her creation by making sure nobody else can make or use said creation without permission, but I see several problems with this kind of system. One, if the inventor is stingy or exceedingly greedy, they may choose to simply withhold their invention. Two, a company may choose to buy the patent and withhold it in order to preserve profits made from an older creation. Three, a patent essentially gives either inventor, whether an individual or a company, a complete monopoly over the technology until the patent expires, restricting it's use.
Wouldn't it be better for the inventor to be recognized for his/her invention as well as receiving a monetary reward in exchange for having the invention placed under public domain so that anybody can develop and utilize it?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cerespasia, Dogmeat, East Leaf Republic, Emotional Support Crocodile, Hidrandia, Infected Mushroom, Neo-Hermitius, Plan Neonie, Stratonesia, The Notorious Mad Jack, Tungstan, Yasuragi
Advertisement