decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Too much R&D, not enough R - Nathan Myhrvold Will Not Apologize for Patent Trolling | 119 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Too much R&D, not enough R - Nathan Myhrvold Will Not Apologize for Patent Trolling
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 18 2012 @ 05:37 PM EDT
For private industry...a lack of first mover advantage is
problematic...creating a new product and having it copied
within a few years is a strongly revenue-negative
proposition. So, companies will be better off sitting on
their hands and spending their development dollars copying
each other. (Even with patents, most developing economies
spent a few decades just duplicating products from the US.
And, even with patents, there are large companies that
specialize in being second movers and duplicating innovative
products.)

It isn't so much that basic research can be or is supported
by industry. (Bell Labs was an exception.) However,
without patents, it would be difficult to justify applied
research - which industry does do. (For example, no one
would ever invest 5-10B in clinical trials to get 1 new drug
without getting a monopoly on its use.*)

One thing that's actually sort of nice about patents is that
they scale well with development cost/need. (With a
monopoly, anything where the value is > development cost
will be developed. Bounty systems, current industry
revenues, et cetera scale less well.)

--Erwin

*Drug discovery is difficult to make reliable and trials in
humans are expensive.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )