|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 02 2012 @ 07:55 PM EDT |
Thanks Tkilgore...this is certainly an interesting discussion (for me at
least).
Your example of Edison's light bulb has helped me refine the point I'm trying to
make.
We can imagine that any invention has two components: (1) the idea of the
invention itself [i.e. a 'solution' to the problem that needs to be addressed],
and (2) a method for realizing the solution to the problem.
If I remember my Edison history well (which I may not), he made a couple of
interesting comments. First, of course, is the comment that "invention is
1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." Second is the comment that he didn't
view the failed attempts as failures, but rather that he "learned 10,000
ways NOT to make a light bulb" (or a comment to that effect). Both of these
comments illustrate that for Edison, the concept of the light bulb was not the
difficult part (esp. since it already existed, as you pointed out...I was not
aware of that interesting wrinkle!). Instead, it was the METHOD that was the
difficult part. His research--as you point out--did not preclude anyone else
from improving upon his light bulb...but they would have to put significant
effort into doing so since they would have to develop an entirely new method
(which is where the difficulty lay).
In contrast, in genetics (and I would argue software, although I'm not a
programmer so maybe this does not hold true) I would argue that the formula for
invention is reversed, namely that it is 99% inspiration and 1% perspiration.
Discovering the ASSOCIATION between a gene and the disease condition is the
difficult part of the equation, involving (generally) years of research. In
comparison, devising a medical test to determine the gene allele is trivial. For
a competitor to devise an equivalent method is relatively trivial. This is why I
question whether protection of the method is sufficient 'reward' for the R&D
efforts that have been invested. I recognize that 'ideas' are generally not
supposed to be patented, but in cases where the idea is the part of the
invention that constitutes the majority of the effort spent it seems wrong to
exclusively protect the method. I don't have the answer to that question, but I
think it is one worthy of consideration.
Your other points are also well-taken. The 'improvements' designed to make light
bulbs fail are certainly a strong counter-argument that patents always lead to
better outcomes for consumers. Your comment about who is the arbiter as to what
constitutes "non-obvious" and "significant R&D
investment" is also a valid point.
The only other comment I would make is about this quote: "One of the
problems, here, is that (as pointed out many times by others who frequent this
site) a computer is a very powerful general purpose device, and all that one
needs to know how to do is to program it. Thus, the inventions to which you
would presumably point were all implicit in the invention of a computer..."
Using genetics again as an counter-example, you could easily make the argument
that DNA and proteins are constructs of nature and therefore all life (natural
or man-made) is implicit in the existence of DNA. That, in my mind, would
grossly devalue the amazing research that is being put into devising bacteria
that clean up toxic waste, generate energy through photosynthesis, etc. Again,
perhaps 'patents' are the wrong form of intellectual property protection for
this type of research, but I would argue vigorously that these are very
important efforts requiring substantial R&D investments that are worthy of
protection (should they succeed).
Anyways, thanks again for a very interesting discussion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
