>> - giving a limited-time monopoly encourages investment in new
>> discoveries that otherwise would not be discovered
> 
> This is a prerogative that is not proven at all. Same thing with
> copyright on music, for example. There is nothing that proves that there
> won't be music without copyright on it. Actually, history shows that
> there was music without copyright. And there were inventions without
> patents. Things would be different without them, that's for sure, but
> who's to know how exactly? And whether that would be worse?

That is a viewpoint, but IMO it is equally unproven that patents do not 
encourage new developments.

I think patents will not disappear altogether, so we can at least agree 
that on what should definitely not be patentable, like things that
- are obvious
- can be invented with (very) little investment
- are just there, waiting to be read (genome, geography of pluto)
- take a large investment, but will be invented anyway

> Which basically gets down to that patents in principle don't work
> (anymore).

For the current practice I agree. That does not imply that patents can't 
work at all.

> That's just a temporary solution, until the 10k (10k what? Euros? :)
> brings the same level of uncertainty as the 1k now.

10k (or maybe 50k) should allow a patent officer to do a decent search. 
This figure should of course be indexed.

> if you don't have the several 100k that it probably costs you to
> defend the patent, it may not even be worth the 10k.

That's why I argue that the main cost should be up-front, not in later 
procedures.

-- 

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist