|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
I think the bottom line of patents are very easy to understand if we stop
getting tied up in the financial reward. The financial reward:
A: Was not
supposed to be a guarantee for the inventor, but an opportunity - it's turned
into a guarantee: It's like handing out the Nobel prize to all scientists every
year instead of handing it out to the top 5
B: It was supposed to be
applied in exceptional circumstances - when the loss of knowledge of the
invention to the public was considered a heavier cost then the grant of a
monopoly
So... let's consider the cost - both for the inventor as well as
for the public in the following situation.
The standard desktop is
equivalent of a calculator on mega steroids. A calculator (programmable or not)
is about the simplest computer we can get at this point. It has a simple
interface for a keypad and it has a simple display. But it does 100% of what a
computer does:
It crunches data!
To get it out of the way to focus the
discussion: there is no disagreement on either device being patentable subject
matter.
If you have a simple programmable calculator then you can enter a
formula like the one to calculate simple interest:
I=Prt where I = interest,
P = principle, r = interest rate, t = time
The bottom line concept everyone
knows the moment they are taught to use a calculator:
Apply a formula, get a
result!
That does not alter. It's the same underlying process no matter
what formula is applied or whether you apply it to a calculator or software to a
computer. As a result, the only thing that changes is:
The formula!
If
you are willing to apply patents on "the application of software to a computer"
then you must logically be willing to apply patents on "the application of a
formula to a calculator".
Your challenge is simple:
Please explain
why someone should be able to receive a patent for "enter 1+1= on a calculator"
while another should receive a patent for "enter 2+2= on a
calculator"!
While you consider your proof, please keep in mind the
following points:
A) The math formula is already disseminated to the public
in one means or another.
B) The "how to use" the device is already
disseminated to the public in one means or another.
I'd dearly like to hear
a reasonable explanation of why someone should be granted a patent that covers
the underlying knowledge of what the public already knows. Remember: if you are
going to talk cost, you need to speak both in terms of cost to the public by
removing existing knowledge from their use in relation to cost to the supposed
inventor.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
In a recent episode of The Daily Show, Edward Conard formerly of Bain Capital
was interviewed. He was talking about rewarding creativity and used the term
"harvesting the creativity" in reference to the people or firms that don't
actually create anything but go around buying up the creative ideas. He was
arguing that these "harvesters" must be properly rewarded for taking the risk of
buying up these creations or the creativity would go unrewarded and thus wither
and die. He was not so concerned with rewarding the creators in the first place
just the harvesters.
Software patents as they stand today do a great job of
rewarding the harvesters and not so much a great job of rewarding the actual
creators. As many have already pointed out, many creators do not even want a
monetary reward.
If our goal is to reward those that can buy up the patents and
then wring every last drop of value out of each one, then we have the perfect
system already place. Many people seem to think this is an appropriate and
noble goal and would issue the bread from the sky patent. On the other hand, if
our goal is to foster innovation, I think we can do better by rewarding the
harvesters less or taking them out of the equation all together. The path we
choose depends upon our goal.
Before we can "fix" this system, we must first
define the goals of this system. Are we attempting to promote the efficient
harvesting of things we discover around us or are we trying to enable the
promulgation of new machines that have never existed before?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
