Terry Harris wrote:

>> This is again one of those suggestions that seem to make sense but on
>> closer examination don't. How can you determine the cost of an
>> invention? See also my other message for an example. How do you
>> factor in the knowledge necessary to get there? If Russell invents a
>> novel low-power voltage converter, it isn't just the few hours he
>> needed from the idea to the first realization, it's the years, maybe
>> decades of work and study that got him there. How to factor this in?
> 
> It isn't a factor unless without the existing patent system Russell
> would not have worked. 

Still... this doesn't answer the question how to put a value on patents.
And how you suggest avoiding to skew the patented world towards
inefficiency. (More expensive is less efficient. Your proposal would
reward expensively created patents better than inexpensively created
patents, therefore rewarding inefficiency. The way things usually go,
you wouldn't have to wait long for this to show results.)


>> Besides, this is using the patent backwards. The patent system is
>> meant to make ideas better sellable in a market economy. 
> 
> Not at all. The patent system was introduced as a reward for
> teaching. I know how to do something, in exchange for teaching
> everyone else  how to do it (by publishing a patent which contains
> the required knowledge) I get rewarded. 

This may have been a claimed intention, but it isn't quite a reality.
The first thing that goes against this is the fact that there is a
barrier to produce and sell something patented, even if I can find out
on my own how to do it. This barrier is a cornerstone of the patent
system. Without this barrier, there wouldn't be a problem at all. It's
this barrier that creates the problem and it has nothing to do with
teaching and all with profit, selling ideas and... the economy :)

When talking to people who register patents, I find that they usually do
this so that they can sell/license the idea or prevent others from
producing the same device. These are the main motivators. I've never
talked to someone who patented ideas who said that he patented them to
teach mankind.


> It had nothing to do with markets or economies it was devised to
> encourage the seeking and sharing of knowledge for the benefit of all
> mankind. It is an important point often lost that the patent system
> and copyright were devised for the benefit of mankind not the benefit
> of inventors and artists. 

In what way is copyright for the benefit of mankind? With patents, you
can at least claim the intention, even though reality is different, but
with copyright? You think Beethoven wouldn't have published his works if
he didn't have copyright on them?


> It is a sign of how perverted the nature of the reward and system has
> become that you think it something to do with markets and economies.

Well, it has -- a patent is always about the economic reward. If it
weren't, there wouldn't be a provision that prohibits others to do the
same and give the patent holder the right to sell licenses to do so.
It's you who thinks it hasn't... :)

In a non-market economy, without the possibility to sell licenses or
increasing one's profit by preventing others from producing a violating
device, patents wouldn't make any sense.

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