#1    Eliminate patents completely .  Close the PTO now.
#2    Restrict copyright to 20 years,  After 20 years copyright owner  
can extend by paying copyright office $1000 per year or  30% of net  
revenue from patent ( whichever is more ).  Once copyright expires, it  
can never be renewed.

Will pharma companies still invest hundreds of millions on drugs ?   
Does it matter ? I don't think it will matter.  Why is a pharma  
company different than any other product producing company ?  People  
will find a way without using patents as a bludgeon.  Eliminating the  
FDA will improve creativity greatly.  Eliminating the medical  
profession monopoly will help greatly.   There can still be privately  
certified doctors.  There can still be privately certified drugs.

Terry has a good idea.   Patent can be filed and defended for up to 17  
years.  Initial filing is $10,000.  Each year costs $10,000 plus  
( number of years since filing times $10,000 ) .  So 3rd year would be  
$10,000 plus 3 times $10,000 for total of $40,000.   So you sell  
licenses for reasonable amounts or everyone waits for you to choke.    
Once a patent is abandoned, it cannot be renewed.
Patent is automatically revoked ( no refunds ) if independent panel  
votes by majority that the patent was obvious to practitioners in the  
area in which the patent was issued.

Is this a perfect solution ?????      NO.  It is better than what  
exists.

Gus

> On Jun 11, 2009, at 9:19 AM, Terry Harris wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:27:57 -0300, you wrote:
>
>> Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
>>
>>>>> - 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?
>
> Would pharmaceuticals spend hundreds of millions on research,  
> development
> and testing of drugs knowing they would be immediately copied and  
> sold by
> companies which had spent almost nothing?
>
> A patent system is needed but what we have no longer works as  
> intended and
> often does more harm than good.
>
> I would suggest that patents are filed with a claimed value. A value  
> which
> represents the effort and costs behind the invention. The claimed  
> value
> would be open to challenge and settled in court if need be. The patent
> holder could license or sell rights granted by the patent for  
> whatever deal
> they can get but they would also be required to sell rights equal to  
> their
> own to anyone paying the claimed value.
>
> The value of a patent needs to represent the cost of the invention  
> because
> it is invention that the system is trying to encourage and protect.
>
> The patent system currently makes the value of a patent whatever can  
> be
> extracted from exploiting it. It over values trivial but useful  
> inventions
> which didn't need to be encouraged or protected, it actually  
> encourages
> patenting which I'm sure frequently involves more cost and effort  
> than the
> patented invention did.
>
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist