FreshVeiw is correct that the thing to do is iether "a) Abolish sales tax, or b) Institute eCommerce/Mail Order tax. " Paul Krugman (MIT Economist) argues for exactly that here.. http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/krugman/021 300krug.html
Why patents are a good thing once the problem of obvious patents is solved (and how to solve that problem)
(1) Society benefits from a patent when the idea, design, machine, or program that is patented is (a) useful and (b) would not have been produced if it were not the patent system. Whether the thing patented is idea, design, machine, program is irrelevant if (a) and (b) hold.
(2) Society is harmed by a patent when the thing patented would have been produced anyway because the patent restricts its use.
(3) The problem with the recent explosion of patents is that many of them fall into the second category.
(4) The problem with scrapping the whole patent system or a class of patents, e.g. software patents, is that society would lose the benefit of patents of type. I expect that most slashdot readers would argue that this would be that this would be a good thing despite losing the benefit of type (1) patents. Perhaps this is true, but I think it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusion - when patents work, it is hard to see them working, when they don't work its is very obvious.
(5) The ideal situation would be to only have patents of type (1); the problem is finding an objective way to identify type (2) patents.
(6) Here is my solution. If you have something that you believe is worthy of a patent, you define the problem you have solved and send it together with a fee, say 10,000 dollars to the patent licensing body. The patent licensing body publicises the problem the patent applicant has defined for, say, 3 months. Anyone via the Internet is then invited, to come up with a solution to the problem. If someone comes up with the same solution as the patent applicant, the first person to do so gets to keep the 10,000 dollars and the solution enters the public domain. If no one comes up with the solution before 3 months have passed, then is not something obvious, so worthy of a patent. Clearly, people have a disincentive to apply for frivolous patents, e.g. one click, since there's a good chance they'd lose their money.
Slashdot Mirror
FreshVeiw is correct that the thing to do is iether "a) Abolish sales tax, or b) Institute eCommerce/Mail Order tax. " Paul Krugman (MIT Economist) argues for exactly that here .. http://www.nytimes.com/library/opinion/krugman/021 300krug.html
Why patents are a good thing once the problem of obvious patents is solved (and how to solve that problem)
(1) Society benefits from a patent when the idea, design, machine, or program that is patented is (a) useful and (b) would not have been produced if it were not the patent system. Whether the thing patented is idea, design, machine, program is irrelevant if (a) and (b) hold.
(2) Society is harmed by a patent when the thing patented would have been produced anyway because the patent restricts its use.
(3) The problem with the recent explosion of patents is that many of them fall into the second category.
(4) The problem with scrapping the whole patent system or a class of patents, e.g. software patents, is that society would lose the benefit of patents of type. I expect that most slashdot readers would argue that this would be that this would be a good thing despite losing the benefit of type (1) patents. Perhaps this is true, but I think it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusion - when patents work, it is hard to see them working, when they don't work its is very obvious.
(5) The ideal situation would be to only have patents of type (1); the problem is finding an objective way to identify type (2) patents.
(6) Here is my solution. If you have something that you believe is worthy of a patent, you define the problem you have solved and send it together with a fee, say 10,000 dollars to the patent licensing body. The patent licensing body publicises the problem the patent applicant has defined for, say, 3 months. Anyone via the Internet is then invited, to come up with a solution to the problem. If someone comes up with the same solution as the patent applicant, the first person to do so gets to keep the 10,000 dollars and the solution enters the public domain. If no one comes up with the solution before 3 months have passed, then is not something obvious, so worthy of a patent. Clearly, people have a disincentive to apply for frivolous patents, e.g. one click, since there's a good chance they'd lose their money.
I hope this interests someone.