Click here to visit a neat site that explores a "what if?" scenario. In other words, what would it have been like if some of the ideas in that article in Collier's that included Bonestell's art had actually been carried out? It's an interesting project, and follow the gallery link to view the trailer (in mpeg format). Kind of neat to see it brought to life this way.
This sounds markedly similar to the idea employed in the underrated TV-movie Safe House, where Patrick Stewart's character, a retired spook, employs a software failsafe based on his ability to recreate a Japanese alphabet character. If he is unable to complete this task every day by a certain time, incriminating information about his black ops "friends" would automatically be sent to every major news organization on the planet. It could be very handy if you think someone is out to get you...
Let's face it, the moment "Attack of the Clones" hits the video market someone's going to be chopping out the annoying C-3PO "comedy" bits. Any changes that Lucas makes to the originals will find themselves weeded out just as quickly by the die-hard fans. Along those lines, I'd like to be the first to suggest the naming scheme for the impending fan edits:
Episode I: The Phantom Edit
Epidose II: Attack of the Edit
Episode III: TBA
Episode IV: A New Edit
Episode V: The Edit Strikes Back
Episode VI: The Return of the Edit
And of course Portman is going to end up a glowing ghost beside Anakin, Obi-Wan and the little green dude. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if Lucas digitally inserts (a suitably make-up aged) Hayden Christensen instead of the guy who's playing Anakin now. Long story short--don't worry about it. The technology is there and the devout Star Wars afficiandos (you know, the guys who make their own vacuum-formed stormtrooper armour?) will have a definitive FAN-tastic version circulating out on the Net before you know it.
Gates and co. simply need to devise a new End-User License Agreement with the following provisions:
By opening the packaging that contains this X-Box, the user agrees that he or she will not purchase a competing console, play games on a friend's competing console, or even look for more than five seconds at a competing console when walking through a store. Furthermore, by plugging in the Microsoft X-Box, the user consents to any and all changes that the Microsoft X-Box may implement in the user's household, including the notification of Microsoft corporate headquarters in the event that a competing console is detected in the household, and the neurological reprogramming of any of the user's offspring to become better Microsoft customers.
That ought to help good ol' MS take its rightful place in our homes and lives.
...battle mode in the original SNES version of MarioKart. Anyone who knows that game intimately will appreciate the countless hours I've squandered duelling with my brothers. We developed and entire vocabulary around that game. "Drive-by shellings", "peel out", and "rogue shells" all evoke the memory of time spent doing intense combat. Heck, it's making me nostalgic. HEck, my youngest brother still has that SNES, maybe it's time for battle...
Did you ever think about the virii that currently infect the processing unit between your ears? I'm not just talking about the obvious examples of encephalitis and mad cow disease, physical illnesses that attack and damage the hardware, but rather the so-called "memtic" virii that can infect your existing software. There may not be a base level programming language for the human mind, despite the assertions of some adherants of neurolinguistic programming, but there are paradigms out there that do seem to share many of the feautures of a disease outbreak. Maoism, Nazism, just about anything that involves a cult of personality could be classified as being akin to a software virus.
What I wonder is this--by linking our minds to an electronic (or photonic or quantum) computer, might we instead gain a new level of protection against infections of our current "software", by having at our disposal the ultimate rational and logical co-processor, and might our fuzzy and intuitive human systems help protect against infections by software virii that must rely on a logic-based attack?
I've been wondering what sort of efficiency gains one could derive from a vehicle that used a hybrid-electric engine (using gas, ethanol, hydrogen, etc., in the combustion engine) or a fuel cell along with a layer of photovoltaic cells.
Obviously, the big problem with solar is that it is not sufficient by itself to power a conventional car. Anyone who has ever looked at the design of a solar racer realizes that significant sacrifices have to be made in terms of conventional design and comfort to achieve the desired performance characteristics. However, rather than trying to power a car based purely on a hybrid engine or solar technology, a combination of the two might make for some very interesting results.
First, the car would have an extended range between refuelings compared to that of any purely hybrid-electric or fuel-cell-powered vehicle. This much is obvious, so we won't dwell on this too long, other than too point out that the characteristics that we would see would bear some resemblance to the famous rocket equation. By adding to the range of vehicle, the solar cells would have that much more time in the sun to derive power, which would extend travel time a bit more, and so on. We could see a much bigger boost in terms of energy gained than one might initially think.
Second, the car would actually possess the ability to store power while sitting in traffic (as opposed to expending fuel, which is the current norm) or sitting parked on the driveway. A few batteries, or better yet a flywheel system (which might be more useful if used in conjuction with a regenerative braking system), could store a nice surplus of power over and above what the solar cells and main engine alone would produce, further extending the vehicle's range.
Third (though this would require some further technological development) while the car was sitting parked on the driveway over a longer period of time, the energy derived from the solar system could actually refill a hydrogen fuel tank with a fairly straightforward assembly (though current technology would likely make the cost of creating such an assembly prohibitive, at least for now). Either the H2O byproduct of combustion or fuel cell reaction could be stored in a tank to be electrolyzed, with the hydrogen returned to the cryogenic tank, or a condensor could be added to remove water vapour from the air, which would then go through the electrloytic process, etc.
Fourth and finally, a hybrid wouldn't suffer the main drawback of a purely solar car, that being the obvious inability to drive at night.
This likely won't happen too soon, but I still think that the possibilies are intriguing.
All right, I think we've got a project. Someone out there has to find a way to spoof a commercial GPS unit to show that the driver exceeded the speed of light (throw in gratuitous joke about being fined for breaking the laws of physics). There'll be a bonus if your speeding fine (if it is calculated to be a multiple of the amount by which you exceeded the limit, and not simply a flat rate) exceeds the GDP of a given nation-state.
Sure, the hell with the rule of law...
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 3
Hey, nothing like a little civil disobedience, right? Until someone dies, which is virtually inevitable when the groups involved are engaged in terrorism. Someday soon one of these groups is going to lob a molotov cocktail at a building and end up incinerating the night cleaner or clerk trapped within. Heck, maybe to piss off even more people said night worker will be a member of a visible minority. Nothing like the restless offspring of privileged white folks torching the black fellow who's working two jobs to make ends meet. Then what? Do we rationalize this as acceptable "collateral damage" the way Timothy McVeigh rationalized dropping a building on a bunch of preschoolers? Is this the kind of society you actually want?
If it is, be prepared for more and more of it to exist behind walls. Gated communities are already multiplying--get ready for that trend to super-accelerate. The more intelligent and reasonable won't fight back through counter-terrorism, they'll start to leave. Be prepared to have these bio-terrorists auditing YOUR lifestyle, and trashing elements of it when they don't approve. Your silent approval of this sort of activity will mean that eventually you'll find these folks on your doorstep. You reap what you sow.
For example, how many Slashdot readers work with computers? Really? That many? Well, did you know that computer research will eventually lead to artificial intelligence, and with that the end of the human race? So of course you won't mind if I break into your house with a crowbar to rectify the situation. Or maybe I'll just wander by Slashdot headquarters one of these days with a few gallons of gasoline. Think I'm wrong about my macabre predictions? Prove it!
The fact is that this kind of unilateral action is simply NOT right. You want to protest? Get a bunch of friends together and burn your own damn SUVs. Support scientific efforts to determine whether or not the risks outweight the benefits when it comes to GE crops and plants. But DON'T talk to me only about risks with no mention of benefits. I consider the prospect of the continued disease and death in the developing world to be a risk. I consider the notion of ploughing under every arable acre of North America (to make up for the lower yields we see with chemical-free, GE-free farming) to be a risk. You want me to respect your opinion? Then do the F*CKING work, or shut the F*CK up.
One last note: do think that these actions are reasonable because the police sometimes seem to sympathize with these activists and condone their crimes by botching the investigations of these crimes? Then consider the company you're keeping. The police who wouldn't investigate crimes against blacks in the South. The state that wouldn't protect the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany. The right to security of person and property goes both ways. You don't give it, you don't get it.
I think that the above poster misunderstands. I believe that the quote "Those sound like pretty good things to encourage to me" refers to the practice of controlling private data through the methods detailed, and thus preventing said private data from falling into government hands, rather than an endorsement of the practice of downloading illegal MP3s.
Taiwan is not a third world country, but they still have a way to go before personal information and the right to privacy are as well-respected as they are in the West (and of course, the West has a long way to go before reaching any sort of ideal situation in that regard as well).
The short version is this--what these students would likely appreciate is someone over here (or over there) assembling a nice downloadable toolkit to allow for the encryption of, hiding of and, if need be, the complete and utter destruction of private data. This would be a very handy tool for promoting free political expression as well (by shielding the authors from the state), a much more worthy goal than hiding a few MP3 files.
This is rather indicative of the problems of taming even pseudo-monopolies like Microsoft (to which alternatives do of course exist, but usually occupy market niches). More and more we see cases of companies with vast market power intimidating not competitors, but the wholesalers and distributors that supply everything to consumers. Much has been made of the way Microsoft used to (and likely still does) bully the hell out of everyone down the supply chain, threatening to destroy anyone who does things that Microsoft doesn't like (such as installing or even carrying the products of competitors). Turning around and leveraging market that market power is a relatively straightforward operation. Every bit of market power that Microsoft acquires makes that next increase in power easier still.
Remember Netscape? Nice little browser, got eaten by IE? Remember RealAudio? They're still around, more or less, but Microsoft has their sights on them. Won't be long, kids. Also, the fact is that it is easier for market leaders across industries to gang up than it is for consumers to do the same. The record industry seems happy to hop in the sack with Microsoft for now, and there's little that the average consumer can do about it. Fair use? Hell, the record companies COUNT ON the revenue from the periodic need of consumers to upgrade the media on which their music is recorded. No upgrades, no gravy train of revenue. Just wait until Billy boy has his finger in the pie. Every computer with Windows XP will find a way to charge you for even humming a tune out loud. What's the solution? Wish I knew...
*whistle tweet* That's it CBS, off the field. Slippery slope is right. Really, what is the limit if they start tinkering with reality without telling the public that they are doing so? I think that the answer is that the only limit is what they think they can't get away with. Today it's a rival's ad. Tomorrow?
Interviewed crime witnesses wearing superimposed Yankees caps. Sniff, sob, it's such a tragedy (Go Yanks!).
Chechen rebels with credit cards superimposed in their hands:
AK-47 - 500 rubles
Fatigues from the Afghanistan war - 50 rubles
Brutal revenge against the Russian oppressors - priceless.
Heck, maybe sponsors will pay to trash their rivals using this technology. That car with the failing brakes that caused the pile-up? Not a Ford, of course. Stick a Toyota in there. Breaking news: two hundred people are being held hostage on an American Airli- ummm, make that Air France, jet tonight. Employee goes on a wild killing spree at Microso- umm, make that Apple.
Jounralistic ethics? Come on, we're talking money here.
Let's be straightforward: the idea of patents themselves are not all that bad. Don't forget, a lot of the idea behind intellectual protection was, to my understanding, to protect the litttle guy. The young man or woman who spends years in his/her garage perfecting some brilliant invention, only to see some enormously rich corporation get all the profits, and hence get even more rich, by simply buying one of the first production models, reverse-engineering it in a couple of weeks, and flooding the marketplace through established distribution channels to which the little guy has absolutely no access. If that sort of situation persisted, what you might well see is an eternal feedback loop, where the rich corporations get richer and richer, and the little guy gets stomped on ad infinitum. Surely this is not actually a desirable state of affairs.
That said, I think that the objections of many slashdotters is not that patents are necessarily an evil concept, but rather that a) the patent system in the US is deeply flawed, and b) much of that flaw revolves around patents being much too easy to obtain. Patents should allow for a reasonable rate of return for an actual innovation. After all, it is in all of our best interests to encourage companies to use their financial resources to fund products and services that we find beneficial.
Let's say that there is a cure for a leukemia that can be developed through the use of genetic technology, but the cure will take several years and around a billion dollars to develop, owing both to the complexity of the problem and the scope and duration of clinical trials required to verify that the treatment will not, while solving one problem, create another one that may be even worse. Let's also say that said hypothetical treatment comes in the form of a small, easily reproducible pill. Fine. Now, ask yourself, what company on earth is going to undertake that sort of investment if that have no guarantee that some generic drug maker won't simply take their product, do a little chemical exploration, and pop out a duplicate product at one tenth the price long before the original developer has had even the slightest chance of making back their investment? Think of it this way: would you keep going to work if they stopped paying you? Hey, maybe you enjoy your job, but eventually you're going to notice that your fridge is empty, the house is cold and dark, and the toilets won't flush.
It may offend our delicate sensibilities that a child may only be cured of a terrible disease if they, their guardians, or the relevant insurance company can afford the price charged by the developer of the needed drug, but really, this is the way the universe works. When was the last time you accused a farmer of being a heartless f***ing bast**d because he actually has the nerve to charge you for the food you need to stay alive?
But I have digressed slightly from the point. The example above is what I would consider to be a suitable reason to allow for a patent, or some form of intellectual property protection, for the simple reason that unless it is provided, that company will not even try to develop that lifesaving drug, and our hypothetical patient is going to be fertilizing the daffodils before too long. But contrast the above example to something like simply uncovering a gene in our DNA. Obviously, to my eye, the two represent vastly different levels of effort and investment, with the former far outweighing the latter. Rewarding them even close to equally is not a rational approach. So, what we need is perhaps a more flexible system that tailors the patents more closely to the actual needs of the company, product, and consumer. Under this sort of system, the Amazon 1-Click patent might be granted, but it would only have a duration of maybe a month.
Solutions? Perhaps a system whereby a company applying for a patent must submit a line by line of development costs, with the understanding that the patent protection will evaporate the moment the revenues on the product in question reach payback plus a suitable percentage return above costs. What if a company should try to cheat by inflating R&D costs? Perhaps some sort of peer review system. If company X claims manpower and resource costs that exceed those required to build the pyramids, maybe a litle red flag should go up and some experts brought in to look at the problem. It will be tricky at first, but eventually the patent office should have a reasonable idea of the actual development costs faced by companies in different sectors of the economy. The advances in Net technology may allow this sort of thing to be feasible. Anyway, it's just one thought among many...
Ultimately, down the line I think that the Internet and the data revolution might provide the better third way that has always been impossible. Ultimately, this is all about fredom of choice, and personally I don't mind paying a bit more for something if I understand that there are further benefits accruing to me for doing so. By purchasing medications, for example, from the company that developed them rather than a generic manufacturer, my support of the innovator rather than imitator all but ensures that the developer will thrive and continue to develop new and useful treatments that may just save my life down the road. To that end, the ability of the Net to help me gather and organize my choices about which company to deal with will only increase in the future, and in the end that may be the best way. However, there is still a long way to go in that respect, so until then maybe e-mail some presidential candidates and demand that they look at the patent system. These people do theoretically work for you, ya know?
Slashdot Mirror
Click here to visit a neat site that explores a "what if?" scenario. In other words, what would it have been like if some of the ideas in that article in Collier's that included Bonestell's art had actually been carried out? It's an interesting project, and follow the gallery link to view the trailer (in mpeg format). Kind of neat to see it brought to life this way.
This sounds markedly similar to the idea employed in the underrated TV-movie Safe House, where Patrick Stewart's character, a retired spook, employs a software failsafe based on his ability to recreate a Japanese alphabet character. If he is unable to complete this task every day by a certain time, incriminating information about his black ops "friends" would automatically be sent to every major news organization on the planet. It could be very handy if you think someone is out to get you...
Let's face it, the moment "Attack of the Clones" hits the video market someone's going to be chopping out the annoying C-3PO "comedy" bits. Any changes that Lucas makes to the originals will find themselves weeded out just as quickly by the die-hard fans. Along those lines, I'd like to be the first to suggest the naming scheme for the impending fan edits:
Episode I: The Phantom Edit
Epidose II: Attack of the Edit
Episode III: TBA
Episode IV: A New Edit
Episode V: The Edit Strikes Back
Episode VI: The Return of the Edit
And of course Portman is going to end up a glowing ghost beside Anakin, Obi-Wan and the little green dude. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if Lucas digitally inserts (a suitably make-up aged) Hayden Christensen instead of the guy who's playing Anakin now. Long story short--don't worry about it. The technology is there and the devout Star Wars afficiandos (you know, the guys who make their own vacuum-formed stormtrooper armour?) will have a definitive FAN-tastic version circulating out on the Net before you know it.
By opening the packaging that contains this X-Box, the user agrees that he or she will not purchase a competing console, play games on a friend's competing console, or even look for more than five seconds at a competing console when walking through a store. Furthermore, by plugging in the Microsoft X-Box, the user consents to any and all changes that the Microsoft X-Box may implement in the user's household, including the notification of Microsoft corporate headquarters in the event that a competing console is detected in the household, and the neurological reprogramming of any of the user's offspring to become better Microsoft customers.
That ought to help good ol' MS take its rightful place in our homes and lives.
...battle mode in the original SNES version of MarioKart. Anyone who knows that game intimately will appreciate the countless hours I've squandered duelling with my brothers. We developed and entire vocabulary around that game. "Drive-by shellings", "peel out", and "rogue shells" all evoke the memory of time spent doing intense combat. Heck, it's making me nostalgic. HEck, my youngest brother still has that SNES, maybe it's time for battle...
What I wonder is this--by linking our minds to an electronic (or photonic or quantum) computer, might we instead gain a new level of protection against infections of our current "software", by having at our disposal the ultimate rational and logical co-processor, and might our fuzzy and intuitive human systems help protect against infections by software virii that must rely on a logic-based attack?
I've been wondering what sort of efficiency gains one could derive from a vehicle that used a hybrid-electric engine (using gas, ethanol, hydrogen, etc., in the combustion engine) or a fuel cell along with a layer of photovoltaic cells.
Obviously, the big problem with solar is that it is not sufficient by itself to power a conventional car. Anyone who has ever looked at the design of a solar racer realizes that significant sacrifices have to be made in terms of conventional design and comfort to achieve the desired performance characteristics. However, rather than trying to power a car based purely on a hybrid engine or solar technology, a combination of the two might make for some very interesting results.
First, the car would have an extended range between refuelings compared to that of any purely hybrid-electric or fuel-cell-powered vehicle. This much is obvious, so we won't dwell on this too long, other than too point out that the characteristics that we would see would bear some resemblance to the famous rocket equation. By adding to the range of vehicle, the solar cells would have that much more time in the sun to derive power, which would extend travel time a bit more, and so on. We could see a much bigger boost in terms of energy gained than one might initially think.
Second, the car would actually possess the ability to store power while sitting in traffic (as opposed to expending fuel, which is the current norm) or sitting parked on the driveway. A few batteries, or better yet a flywheel system (which might be more useful if used in conjuction with a regenerative braking system), could store a nice surplus of power over and above what the solar cells and main engine alone would produce, further extending the vehicle's range.
Third (though this would require some further technological development) while the car was sitting parked on the driveway over a longer period of time, the energy derived from the solar system could actually refill a hydrogen fuel tank with a fairly straightforward assembly (though current technology would likely make the cost of creating such an assembly prohibitive, at least for now). Either the H2O byproduct of combustion or fuel cell reaction could be stored in a tank to be electrolyzed, with the hydrogen returned to the cryogenic tank, or a condensor could be added to remove water vapour from the air, which would then go through the electrloytic process, etc.
Fourth and finally, a hybrid wouldn't suffer the main drawback of a purely solar car, that being the obvious inability to drive at night.
This likely won't happen too soon, but I still think that the possibilies are intriguing.
All right, I think we've got a project. Someone out there has to find a way to spoof a commercial GPS unit to show that the driver exceeded the speed of light (throw in gratuitous joke about being fined for breaking the laws of physics). There'll be a bonus if your speeding fine (if it is calculated to be a multiple of the amount by which you exceeded the limit, and not simply a flat rate) exceeds the GDP of a given nation-state.
If it is, be prepared for more and more of it to exist behind walls. Gated communities are already multiplying--get ready for that trend to super-accelerate. The more intelligent and reasonable won't fight back through counter-terrorism, they'll start to leave. Be prepared to have these bio-terrorists auditing YOUR lifestyle, and trashing elements of it when they don't approve. Your silent approval of this sort of activity will mean that eventually you'll find these folks on your doorstep. You reap what you sow.
For example, how many Slashdot readers work with computers? Really? That many? Well, did you know that computer research will eventually lead to artificial intelligence, and with that the end of the human race? So of course you won't mind if I break into your house with a crowbar to rectify the situation. Or maybe I'll just wander by Slashdot headquarters one of these days with a few gallons of gasoline. Think I'm wrong about my macabre predictions? Prove it!
The fact is that this kind of unilateral action is simply NOT right. You want to protest? Get a bunch of friends together and burn your own damn SUVs. Support scientific efforts to determine whether or not the risks outweight the benefits when it comes to GE crops and plants. But DON'T talk to me only about risks with no mention of benefits. I consider the prospect of the continued disease and death in the developing world to be a risk. I consider the notion of ploughing under every arable acre of North America (to make up for the lower yields we see with chemical-free, GE-free farming) to be a risk. You want me to respect your opinion? Then do the F*CKING work, or shut the F*CK up.
One last note: do think that these actions are reasonable because the police sometimes seem to sympathize with these activists and condone their crimes by botching the investigations of these crimes? Then consider the company you're keeping. The police who wouldn't investigate crimes against blacks in the South. The state that wouldn't protect the rights of Jews in Nazi Germany. The right to security of person and property goes both ways. You don't give it, you don't get it.
Taiwan is not a third world country, but they still have a way to go before personal information and the right to privacy are as well-respected as they are in the West (and of course, the West has a long way to go before reaching any sort of ideal situation in that regard as well).
The short version is this--what these students would likely appreciate is someone over here (or over there) assembling a nice downloadable toolkit to allow for the encryption of, hiding of and, if need be, the complete and utter destruction of private data. This would be a very handy tool for promoting free political expression as well (by shielding the authors from the state), a much more worthy goal than hiding a few MP3 files.
Remember Netscape? Nice little browser, got eaten by IE? Remember RealAudio? They're still around, more or less, but Microsoft has their sights on them. Won't be long, kids. Also, the fact is that it is easier for market leaders across industries to gang up than it is for consumers to do the same. The record industry seems happy to hop in the sack with Microsoft for now, and there's little that the average consumer can do about it. Fair use? Hell, the record companies COUNT ON the revenue from the periodic need of consumers to upgrade the media on which their music is recorded. No upgrades, no gravy train of revenue. Just wait until Billy boy has his finger in the pie. Every computer with Windows XP will find a way to charge you for even humming a tune out loud. What's the solution? Wish I knew...
Interviewed crime witnesses wearing superimposed Yankees caps. Sniff, sob, it's such a tragedy (Go Yanks!).
Chechen rebels with credit cards superimposed in their hands:
AK-47 - 500 rubles
Fatigues from the Afghanistan war - 50 rubles
Brutal revenge against the Russian oppressors - priceless.
Heck, maybe sponsors will pay to trash their rivals using this technology. That car with the failing brakes that caused the pile-up? Not a Ford, of course. Stick a Toyota in there. Breaking news: two hundred people are being held hostage on an American Airli- ummm, make that Air France, jet tonight. Employee goes on a wild killing spree at Microso- umm, make that Apple.
Jounralistic ethics? Come on, we're talking money here.
That said, I think that the objections of many slashdotters is not that patents are necessarily an evil concept, but rather that a) the patent system in the US is deeply flawed, and b) much of that flaw revolves around patents being much too easy to obtain. Patents should allow for a reasonable rate of return for an actual innovation. After all, it is in all of our best interests to encourage companies to use their financial resources to fund products and services that we find beneficial.
Let's say that there is a cure for a leukemia that can be developed through the use of genetic technology, but the cure will take several years and around a billion dollars to develop, owing both to the complexity of the problem and the scope and duration of clinical trials required to verify that the treatment will not, while solving one problem, create another one that may be even worse. Let's also say that said hypothetical treatment comes in the form of a small, easily reproducible pill. Fine. Now, ask yourself, what company on earth is going to undertake that sort of investment if that have no guarantee that some generic drug maker won't simply take their product, do a little chemical exploration, and pop out a duplicate product at one tenth the price long before the original developer has had even the slightest chance of making back their investment? Think of it this way: would you keep going to work if they stopped paying you? Hey, maybe you enjoy your job, but eventually you're going to notice that your fridge is empty, the house is cold and dark, and the toilets won't flush.
It may offend our delicate sensibilities that a child may only be cured of a terrible disease if they, their guardians, or the relevant insurance company can afford the price charged by the developer of the needed drug, but really, this is the way the universe works. When was the last time you accused a farmer of being a heartless f***ing bast**d because he actually has the nerve to charge you for the food you need to stay alive?
But I have digressed slightly from the point. The example above is what I would consider to be a suitable reason to allow for a patent, or some form of intellectual property protection, for the simple reason that unless it is provided, that company will not even try to develop that lifesaving drug, and our hypothetical patient is going to be fertilizing the daffodils before too long. But contrast the above example to something like simply uncovering a gene in our DNA. Obviously, to my eye, the two represent vastly different levels of effort and investment, with the former far outweighing the latter. Rewarding them even close to equally is not a rational approach. So, what we need is perhaps a more flexible system that tailors the patents more closely to the actual needs of the company, product, and consumer. Under this sort of system, the Amazon 1-Click patent might be granted, but it would only have a duration of maybe a month.
Solutions? Perhaps a system whereby a company applying for a patent must submit a line by line of development costs, with the understanding that the patent protection will evaporate the moment the revenues on the product in question reach payback plus a suitable percentage return above costs. What if a company should try to cheat by inflating R&D costs? Perhaps some sort of peer review system. If company X claims manpower and resource costs that exceed those required to build the pyramids, maybe a litle red flag should go up and some experts brought in to look at the problem. It will be tricky at first, but eventually the patent office should have a reasonable idea of the actual development costs faced by companies in different sectors of the economy. The advances in Net technology may allow this sort of thing to be feasible. Anyway, it's just one thought among many...
Ultimately, down the line I think that the Internet and the data revolution might provide the better third way that has always been impossible. Ultimately, this is all about fredom of choice, and personally I don't mind paying a bit more for something if I understand that there are further benefits accruing to me for doing so. By purchasing medications, for example, from the company that developed them rather than a generic manufacturer, my support of the innovator rather than imitator all but ensures that the developer will thrive and continue to develop new and useful treatments that may just save my life down the road. To that end, the ability of the Net to help me gather and organize my choices about which company to deal with will only increase in the future, and in the end that may be the best way. However, there is still a long way to go in that respect, so until then maybe e-mail some presidential candidates and demand that they look at the patent system. These people do theoretically work for you, ya know?
Peace.