That window would probably be too narrow for drug companies to recoup the cost of research. They can't charge unlimited $$$ for drugs because there is usually a cap where the insurance companies are no longer required to pay.
Playing devil's advocate (because I'm opposed to all patents):
The difference between the two is that in drugs, you patent the final drugs, and not the chemical precursors, which are generally considered too simple to be patentable. But in software, that is ALL that is ever patented. Apple doesn't have a patent on Siri, but on hundreds of the tiny little algorithms that make it up.
That's a tiny minority of city folk. Yes, they exist, and, yes, that tiny minority outnumbers all the country folk combined, but, no, that doesn't represent most city folk.
I kind of liked the idyllic worldview in which the author assumed that not all of slashdot had been beaten over the head with a flurry of bitcoin stories, and therefore he had to explain the term. I mean those are some fine rose colored glasses if ever there were any.
Which would mean a small net loss for the government as a whole, since at least 1 someone is going to manage them from outside the USPTO system, but inside the government as a whole.
Still, it's better than I thought.
And the reasoning on the pricing is that it is supposed to promote the general welfare. So increased tax revenues should result by virtue of patents existing and being legally enforceable.
But with 7 billion people, and overcrowding getting worse every day, adapting through a few thousand megadeaths would probably leave the world a much better place for the survivors.
4 out of 5 dentists agree that drinking too much soda is bad for your teeth, and the reason is that the released co2 will warm the planet, causing more rapid growth of tooth destroying bacteria in our mouths.
I think in all fairness there are a couple of legitimately large factions here:
~20%: Convinced this is a hoax perpetrated by special interests. ~20%: Convinced government is so evil we shouldn't do anything about this even if it's catastrophic for humanity. ~50%: Convinced this is a real issue we might need to do something about for our children's survival.
The truly disinterested in this issue is a pretty small number, mostly people who are tired of listening to the conflict going on between the other 90%.
Our power output per capita is not a meaningful contribution to global warming. The problem is that the main source of our energy, fossil fuel combustion, happens to release large amounts of a gas (co2) that happens to be a more effective insulator than the mix of gases that made up our atmosphere before the industrial revolution. If we switched to 100% nuclear tomorrow, and had 70 billion people using 10x as much energy on average, we still wouldn't have a problem dissipating the heat.
Go look up the numbers. There just isn't that much money, total, to be made in energy production within the lifetime of a patent. I'm not thinking too small, you're imagining that the profitability is more than it could possibly be.
Nope, you'll get in trouble with the law if you do. You can offer those services, or you can call yourself a psychologist, but if you do both you are going to jail.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there any debate that a programming IDE can be patented? No. But the output programs are a different story. Or are they?
That window would probably be too narrow for drug companies to recoup the cost of research. They can't charge unlimited $$$ for drugs because there is usually a cap where the insurance companies are no longer required to pay.
Flawed comparison at its best. GP isn't even remotely close to the best flawed grammar you'll see on Slashdot.
Playing devil's advocate (because I'm opposed to all patents):
The difference between the two is that in drugs, you patent the final drugs, and not the chemical precursors, which are generally considered too simple to be patentable. But in software, that is ALL that is ever patented. Apple doesn't have a patent on Siri, but on hundreds of the tiny little algorithms that make it up.
And I was worried no one would appreciate that. :-)
In that kind of global apocalypse, yes.
Woosh. Read the ggp again.
That's a tiny minority of city folk. Yes, they exist, and, yes, that tiny minority outnumbers all the country folk combined, but, no, that doesn't represent most city folk.
I kind of liked the idyllic worldview in which the author assumed that not all of slashdot had been beaten over the head with a flurry of bitcoin stories, and therefore he had to explain the term. I mean those are some fine rose colored glasses if ever there were any.
Ugggh. I see this junk everywhere. Will slashdot's overlords please consider terminating this account? (and the thousands just like it ...)
They actually balance their budget, apparently:
http://www.uspto.gov/news/speeches/2011/kappos_house_2012budget.jsp
Which would mean a small net loss for the government as a whole, since at least 1 someone is going to manage them from outside the USPTO system, but inside the government as a whole.
Still, it's better than I thought.
And the reasoning on the pricing is that it is supposed to promote the general welfare. So increased tax revenues should result by virtue of patents existing and being legally enforceable.
Nah, I want my roll of the dice like everybody else gets.
But if you wanted to create fraud, or the idea that there is fraud among AGW scientists, what would you do?
But with 7 billion people, and overcrowding getting worse every day, adapting through a few thousand megadeaths would probably leave the world a much better place for the survivors.
4 out of 5 dentists agree that drinking too much soda is bad for your teeth, and the reason is that the released co2 will warm the planet, causing more rapid growth of tooth destroying bacteria in our mouths.
Consider that your new position may have been precisely the Koch brother's goal in setting this up. These are not stupid people, just greedy.
I think in all fairness there are a couple of legitimately large factions here:
~20%: Convinced this is a hoax perpetrated by special interests.
~20%: Convinced government is so evil we shouldn't do anything about this even if it's catastrophic for humanity.
~50%: Convinced this is a real issue we might need to do something about for our children's survival.
The truly disinterested in this issue is a pretty small number, mostly people who are tired of listening to the conflict going on between the other 90%.
Our power output per capita is not a meaningful contribution to global warming. The problem is that the main source of our energy, fossil fuel combustion, happens to release large amounts of a gas (co2) that happens to be a more effective insulator than the mix of gases that made up our atmosphere before the industrial revolution. If we switched to 100% nuclear tomorrow, and had 70 billion people using 10x as much energy on average, we still wouldn't have a problem dissipating the heat.
I don't find it mind numbing, but most people do. Seriously, get out of your basement, and talk to a small sample of non-software-developers.
Go look up the numbers. There just isn't that much money, total, to be made in energy production within the lifetime of a patent. I'm not thinking too small, you're imagining that the profitability is more than it could possibly be.
The big advantage to green energy is that even if it is a bubble, you still accrue the long term benefits.
Sure, but the construction projects can, and are.
Nope, you'll get in trouble with the law if you do. You can offer those services, or you can call yourself a psychologist, but if you do both you are going to jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist#United_States_and_Canada
Flamebait? Go get 'em metamods.
The Zetas are not constrained by secrecy, they are constrained by a lack of resources and will on the part of the government.