Exactly. Doesn't it strike you as strange that patents are more likely to be exercised in mature industries? Ever notice how industries that didn't rely upon patents in the beginning suddenly get all hot and bothered over patents when the industry matures?
The only entities who like patents, and can really (ab)use them are incumbents.
I agree with your statements on software, but I disagree with your statements concerning innovation in health care without patents. Here is a case in point: China. For 5,000 years, they developed a highly success philosophy of medicine that is still practiced today, without patents. We don't see them seeking patents on plants or molecules to support their industry (or least we didn't until they joined the WTO). And besides, the statement "patents encourage innovation" is *still* an assumption. There are simply no studies that prove that patents are a net benefit to society.
On the other hand, it might be that the facilities and the investment required for innovation in medicine should be paid for by the government and treated like a utility. The really smart people will still get paid, but not like the patent lottery that we have now. One question I never see asked is this: when drug companies patent medicine and accept the benefits, are they willing to lose the patent if the medicine kills people? I know, it seems to be a bit of a pedantic question. But all too often, I see corporations reaching for the benefits but being unwilling to accept the liabilities.
And there is one last point I'd like to offer for consideration: patents are essentially government intervention in the markets. A medicine for which the marginal cost of manufacture is $4, is sold for $1000. This is partly due to the cost of testing required to get the drug approved. This is also a part of the rent-seeking behavior of patentees. Once a drug is patented, we're treated to an endless medley of melancholy drug commercials, ruthless marketing of the same drug to doctors, and lawsuits. I would like to see the Bayh-Dole Act repealed and have government research put into the public domain. If private entities want patent royalties, they can do it with their own money.
I can't say that I know the answer, but what we're doing isn't working too well. I'd like to see how it works without patents at all.
Even if there were a "net energy gain", we'd still have to consider the ability of the body to assimilate the nutrition. By assimilate, I mean, using the products of digestion to provide raw materials for repair and building new tissue. Producing enzymes for digestion seems to hinder the assimilation process.
I have a hard time seeing how producing new enzymes is more efficient than letting existing enzymes in food do the work. Could you explain how it could be more efficient to force the body to produce more enzymes than to use the enzymes already present in raw food?
That humans have been cooking for a long time may be true (depending on your chosen time scale), but I doubt that producing enzymes in the human body is more efficient than using the enzymes already present in the food. The net, I think is a negative draw on our resources as living beings. Hence we would tend to age faster, have a greater incidence of cancer, etc.
Since we're talking about digestive enzymes, and digestive enzymes are used by every living animal and some plants, the question is totally applicable to humans and cats, and any other animal. Enzymes are a basic engine of life, and there isn't any form of life you can point to that doesn't use them.
Even if we were able to produce the enzymes, the production of the enzymes redirects energy away from other processes, such as assimilation, immune system function and even cognition (ever fall asleep after lunch?).
The only benefit I can see of eating cooked food is that we've been raised in a culture of cooking food, making cooked food more convenient and available. That might seem more efficient to the brain, but not to body. Oh, the joules that could be saved if we stopped cooking food. One can only imagine...
I disagree with the article, and would have replied there, but your posting seemed like a good location to reply. All food comes with enzymes that promote the breakdown of itself, and all digestive systems can allow for the enzymes in the food to do the work. Cook the food and you kill the enzymes. And when you kill the enzymes, the body has to redirect resources to the production of enzymes for breaking down food. There are several notable works available that provide empirical evidence to support this notion:
The use of fire by humans is relatively recent in evolutionary time scales. And based on the evidence above, I doubt that cooking food did very much to advance the evolution of our digestive system, or our intelligence. And as to the immune system, I don't have enough information to form an opinion other than to say if the body is redirecting resources to create enzymes to digest food, then the immune system could be disadvantaged to the extent that resources are redirected to the production of digestive enzymes.
The fact that the city of Corona is trying to cut the county and the state out of revenue is the real story here. Red lights come and go. But revenue wars such as this are pretty interesting.
The only question in my mind left is whether they are following the 3-second rule on yellow lights.
I totally agree with your post, but I thought it was worth mentioning the following quote from the article:
David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar Company, the nationâ(TM)s largest sugar beet processor, said food companies had accepted sugar from the biotech beets. âoeTheyâ(TM)ve been a big nonevent in terms of customer acceptance,â he said.
A "nonevent", eh? I bet there would most certainly be an "event" if there were labels on the food.
This is just one more reason to abolish the patent system. Rent-seeking is out of control, particularly with respect to the desire for a captured market. Sure, let's get rid of software patents and gene patents and business method patents. Let's see how long that will last. As long as there is a patent system, incumbents will always seek more protection. Best to blast it out completely, at the roots.
Ok, I know that was more than you asked for, but I just needed to vent.
It seems that most people stop at software patents. But like the killer weed in the other article posted today, the assumption that patents are good will die hard. To do something about just software patents will only do minor damage as the lawyers will try to find some other way to keep software patents around without actually calling them that.
Right. Create tax incentives to bring jobs to the states. So the executives and the shareholders make out like bandits, but the employees who have to pay withholding taxes are stuck. Employees can't simply create a corporation in another state to minimize their tax liability, can't they? Ok, maybe they could, but I can just hear it now in the HR department, "What? Mail the paycheck to a corporation? I don't think so. If we do this, we're going to be nailed for employment taxes no matter how we structure this."
If companies aren't just a piggy bank to be raided at will, neither are employees. And since incorporating is a privilege, it should be taxed as such.
In case you might not have noticed, there is a reason that Congress has jurisdiction over interstate commerce: to prevent trade wars between the states. Tax incentives to lure corporations are an encroachment on that power, if indirectly. Consider that individual states have a board of equalization to equalize the taxation power between the counties. We may need something like that for the states.
So we either have a nice lawsuit to force the issue and ban such incentives, or we create a national body to oversee such incentives and prevent trade between the states from being perverted.
Could you follow up that article with another one that provides analysis on the impact these tests will have on the patents for these drugs? I understand that the patents for drugs may have been issued for the manufacturing process used to make them. But I would think that they are issued for the claimed function(s) of the drug. If the patent claims are for cures of diseases (or relief), then perhaps such patents are ripe for re-examination once it is discovered that placebos work better.
I'm okay with reducing their tax liability to the extent that their limited liability is waived. If they assume complete personal liability as stockholders, then taxes fall to near zero. No personal liability? 90% tax.
Intellectual property is the only "property right" that allows me to tell other people what they cannot do with their property. That is, in a way, slavery, perhaps even murder. Intellectual Property is a privilege, not a right. And it is a problem often missed or conveniently left out by IP proponents.
To begin with, you can always make money on your idea with first mover advantage. What most patentees want is to have residual income from their work, you know, like multilevel marketing. In other words, they should be able to sit back, relax and watch the checks roll in. Patents have a strong tendency to replace R & D efforts, especially in large organizations (see Bessen and Hunt, 2004).
The problems with patents are many, but mainly attributable to the fact that human insecurity and greed get in the way. The book, "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michelle Boldrin and David Levine, details an incredibly unflattering history of our many attempts to get it right with both patents and copyrights. And Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers of our Constitution, had serious reservations about patents, almost 200 years ago. His observations still hold true to this day.
The same problems seen then, are seen now. No one can say for sure what is patentable. Lawyers will always write claims so broad it takes a court to figure it out. And patentees will always seek stronger enforcement without providing a clear way to give notice to everyone that they own a particular idea. Worse, they devise submarine patents to let others work until there is enough money to sue for. The only cure is to remove patents altogether and watch innovation take off (inventors would rather tinker than to search for patents). As far as I can tell, the notion that "patents encourage innovation" is an assumption made by economists and nothing more. There are no studies that show conclusively, that patents actually encourage innovation. None.
The fugitive fermentations of a brain belong to no one and are shared by all once divulged, for their inspirations come from all of us. Patentees need to read up on the word Ubuntu, which means I am me because of all of you. And considering the size and quantity of problems facing the human race, cooperation and collaboration is a lot more important than claiming the prize while our Earth dies.
Exactly. This is the result of two forces, or desires: the desire not to be sued for research that we thought was unique but turns out to be patented by someone else already, and the desire to own the market.
The "winner take all" system is finally starting to show it's age. Time to go nuclear with patents and be done with them all.
Slashdot Mirror
The chipset vendors are next. This is just a test lawsuit.
They're probably going after the easy money first. Then once they prevail with the low hanging fruit, they go after the bigger players.
Exactly. Doesn't it strike you as strange that patents are more likely to be exercised in mature industries? Ever notice how industries that didn't rely upon patents in the beginning suddenly get all hot and bothered over patents when the industry matures?
The only entities who like patents, and can really (ab)use them are incumbents.
Maybe, maybe not.
Covered by Slashdot here. What will they think up next?
Shades of Michael Chricton's Prey. Fun.
Wait...if software is *just* math, should it be patentable?
I agree with your statements on software, but I disagree with your statements concerning innovation in health care without patents. Here is a case in point: China. For 5,000 years, they developed a highly success philosophy of medicine that is still practiced today, without patents. We don't see them seeking patents on plants or molecules to support their industry (or least we didn't until they joined the WTO). And besides, the statement "patents encourage innovation" is *still* an assumption. There are simply no studies that prove that patents are a net benefit to society.
On the other hand, it might be that the facilities and the investment required for innovation in medicine should be paid for by the government and treated like a utility. The really smart people will still get paid, but not like the patent lottery that we have now. One question I never see asked is this: when drug companies patent medicine and accept the benefits, are they willing to lose the patent if the medicine kills people? I know, it seems to be a bit of a pedantic question. But all too often, I see corporations reaching for the benefits but being unwilling to accept the liabilities.
And there is one last point I'd like to offer for consideration: patents are essentially government intervention in the markets. A medicine for which the marginal cost of manufacture is $4, is sold for $1000. This is partly due to the cost of testing required to get the drug approved. This is also a part of the rent-seeking behavior of patentees. Once a drug is patented, we're treated to an endless medley of melancholy drug commercials, ruthless marketing of the same drug to doctors, and lawsuits. I would like to see the Bayh-Dole Act repealed and have government research put into the public domain. If private entities want patent royalties, they can do it with their own money.
I can't say that I know the answer, but what we're doing isn't working too well. I'd like to see how it works without patents at all.
Even if there were a "net energy gain", we'd still have to consider the ability of the body to assimilate the nutrition. By assimilate, I mean, using the products of digestion to provide raw materials for repair and building new tissue. Producing enzymes for digestion seems to hinder the assimilation process.
I have a hard time seeing how producing new enzymes is more efficient than letting existing enzymes in food do the work. Could you explain how it could be more efficient to force the body to produce more enzymes than to use the enzymes already present in raw food?
That humans have been cooking for a long time may be true (depending on your chosen time scale), but I doubt that producing enzymes in the human body is more efficient than using the enzymes already present in the food. The net, I think is a negative draw on our resources as living beings. Hence we would tend to age faster, have a greater incidence of cancer, etc.
Since we're talking about digestive enzymes, and digestive enzymes are used by every living animal and some plants, the question is totally applicable to humans and cats, and any other animal. Enzymes are a basic engine of life, and there isn't any form of life you can point to that doesn't use them.
Even if we were able to produce the enzymes, the production of the enzymes redirects energy away from other processes, such as assimilation, immune system function and even cognition (ever fall asleep after lunch?).
The only benefit I can see of eating cooked food is that we've been raised in a culture of cooking food, making cooked food more convenient and available. That might seem more efficient to the brain, but not to body. Oh, the joules that could be saved if we stopped cooking food. One can only imagine...
I disagree with the article, and would have replied there, but your posting seemed like a good location to reply. All food comes with enzymes that promote the breakdown of itself, and all digestive systems can allow for the enzymes in the food to do the work. Cook the food and you kill the enzymes. And when you kill the enzymes, the body has to redirect resources to the production of enzymes for breaking down food. There are several notable works available that provide empirical evidence to support this notion:
Enzyme Nutrition, by Dr. Edward Howell,
The Wheatgrass Book
The Pottenger Experiments.
The use of fire by humans is relatively recent in evolutionary time scales. And based on the evidence above, I doubt that cooking food did very much to advance the evolution of our digestive system, or our intelligence. And as to the immune system, I don't have enough information to form an opinion other than to say if the body is redirecting resources to create enzymes to digest food, then the immune system could be disadvantaged to the extent that resources are redirected to the production of digestive enzymes.
The fact that the city of Corona is trying to cut the county and the state out of revenue is the real story here. Red lights come and go. But revenue wars such as this are pretty interesting.
The only question in my mind left is whether they are following the 3-second rule on yellow lights.
I totally agree with your post, but I thought it was worth mentioning the following quote from the article:
:)
David Berg, president of American Crystal Sugar Company, the nationâ(TM)s largest sugar beet processor, said food companies had accepted sugar from the biotech beets. âoeTheyâ(TM)ve been a big nonevent in terms of customer acceptance,â he said.
A "nonevent", eh? I bet there would most certainly be an "event" if there were labels on the food.
This is just one more reason to abolish the patent system. Rent-seeking is out of control, particularly with respect to the desire for a captured market. Sure, let's get rid of software patents and gene patents and business method patents. Let's see how long that will last. As long as there is a patent system, incumbents will always seek more protection. Best to blast it out completely, at the roots.
Ok, I know that was more than you asked for, but I just needed to vent.
Proceed as you were.
It seems that most people stop at software patents. But like the killer weed in the other article posted today, the assumption that patents are good will die hard. To do something about just software patents will only do minor damage as the lawyers will try to find some other way to keep software patents around without actually calling them that.
Better to do away with patents altogether.
Right. Create tax incentives to bring jobs to the states. So the executives and the shareholders make out like bandits, but the employees who have to pay withholding taxes are stuck. Employees can't simply create a corporation in another state to minimize their tax liability, can't they? Ok, maybe they could, but I can just hear it now in the HR department, "What? Mail the paycheck to a corporation? I don't think so. If we do this, we're going to be nailed for employment taxes no matter how we structure this."
If companies aren't just a piggy bank to be raided at will, neither are employees. And since incorporating is a privilege, it should be taxed as such.
In case you might not have noticed, there is a reason that Congress has jurisdiction over interstate commerce: to prevent trade wars between the states. Tax incentives to lure corporations are an encroachment on that power, if indirectly. Consider that individual states have a board of equalization to equalize the taxation power between the counties. We may need something like that for the states.
So we either have a nice lawsuit to force the issue and ban such incentives, or we create a national body to oversee such incentives and prevent trade between the states from being perverted.
Agreed.
Nice sig. I never know what I'm going to get when I click on those things, but this time, I liked the analysis.
Could you follow up that article with another one that provides analysis on the impact these tests will have on the patents for these drugs? I understand that the patents for drugs may have been issued for the manufacturing process used to make them. But I would think that they are issued for the claimed function(s) of the drug. If the patent claims are for cures of diseases (or relief), then perhaps such patents are ripe for re-examination once it is discovered that placebos work better.
Thanks for the article. It was very informative.
Maybe IBM filed their brief as a farce.
I'm okay with reducing their tax liability to the extent that their limited liability is waived. If they assume complete personal liability as stockholders, then taxes fall to near zero. No personal liability? 90% tax.
Intellectual property is the only "property right" that allows me to tell other people what they cannot do with their property. That is, in a way, slavery, perhaps even murder. Intellectual Property is a privilege, not a right. And it is a problem often missed or conveniently left out by IP proponents.
To begin with, you can always make money on your idea with first mover advantage. What most patentees want is to have residual income from their work, you know, like multilevel marketing. In other words, they should be able to sit back, relax and watch the checks roll in. Patents have a strong tendency to replace R & D efforts, especially in large organizations (see Bessen and Hunt, 2004).
The problems with patents are many, but mainly attributable to the fact that human insecurity and greed get in the way. The book, "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michelle Boldrin and David Levine, details an incredibly unflattering history of our many attempts to get it right with both patents and copyrights. And Thomas Jefferson, one of the framers of our Constitution, had serious reservations about patents, almost 200 years ago. His observations still hold true to this day.
The same problems seen then, are seen now. No one can say for sure what is patentable. Lawyers will always write claims so broad it takes a court to figure it out. And patentees will always seek stronger enforcement without providing a clear way to give notice to everyone that they own a particular idea. Worse, they devise submarine patents to let others work until there is enough money to sue for. The only cure is to remove patents altogether and watch innovation take off (inventors would rather tinker than to search for patents). As far as I can tell, the notion that "patents encourage innovation" is an assumption made by economists and nothing more. There are no studies that show conclusively, that patents actually encourage innovation. None.
The fugitive fermentations of a brain belong to no one and are shared by all once divulged, for their inspirations come from all of us. Patentees need to read up on the word Ubuntu, which means I am me because of all of you. And considering the size and quantity of problems facing the human race, cooperation and collaboration is a lot more important than claiming the prize while our Earth dies.
So there.
Still too long.
Exactly. This is the result of two forces, or desires: the desire not to be sued for research that we thought was unique but turns out to be patented by someone else already, and the desire to own the market.
The "winner take all" system is finally starting to show it's age. Time to go nuclear with patents and be done with them all.