Look, I know there are counter arguments to everything. I am simply stating what the most accepted arguments are.
If those inventions do anything useful at all, there is already plenty of incentive to bring them to market: making money from them.
Sure, however, if the invention is easily copied, there is less of an incentive to bring it to market because a competitor can simply copy it without having to expend the initial resources to invent it.
Only for inventions that can be kept secret, is it necessary to give inventors an incentive to share them anyway.
Patent law won't help you here because a trade secret would be more beneficial to the inventor. Trade secret protection can last indefinitely.
Many patents have been acquired long after the actual invention has been done and used in the market.
If that is true, then the patent is invalid. You can only get a patent on an invention prior to the invention being known to the public. A problem with software patents is that the Patent Office does not have the resources to determine if a software invention is already known or obvious.
But that's only necessary for patents that can be kept secret.
You can't keep a patent secret. In fact, if you fail to disclose required elements of the invention within the patent, the patent is invalid.
There is a mountain of literature on the incentives debate. We could go on for days on that issue alone. Let's not.
1. Patents don't require you to bring anything to market. In fact, a common use of patents is to simply obtain the patent and use it extract money from someone else who wants to bring the product to market. As long as you're the first person to apply, you get money without having to actually sell anything.
That's correct but the public still benefits from the disclosure requirement.
2. There's already an incentive to bring new inventions to market: namely, the money you get from selling them. If you design a better mousetrap, you'll sell a lot of mousetraps before your competitors catch on.
There is definitely a first to market advantage in some industries but I find that it is often due to marketing and brand recognition.
20 years later, sure. The problem is, innovation is stalled for 20 years in the meantime.
Not if the second inventor obtains a license from the first inventor.
In addition, the design around incentive is also beneficial because the public will then have an entirely new innovation.
If you are against the patent system entirely, I invite you to compare the economies of nations with strong IP law with the economies of those countries that have weak or no IP law.
Nothing I said goes against what you said. My only point here is that patent protection is good for inventions that are easily reversed engineered. It creates the incentive for inventors to bring those types of inventions to market, which benefits society.
I assume the original poster said that patent protection isn't required for inventions "that can easily be examined and cloned" because the disclosure required by a patent would not be necessary. My point is that those types of inventions would never be revealed to the public because the inventor will not waste resources on them. Patents give the inventor a reason to reveal those inventions to the public, which in turn, allows other inventors to build on them and obtain new patents. Society benefits again and the process repeats itself.
Not really. Inventors often decide between patent protection and trade secret protection. Patent protection is useful when the invention is easily reverse engineered but the trade off is the limited time of protection. Trade secret protection is useful for inventions that are not easily reverse engineered because protection can last indefinitely. You can't have both patent and trade secret protection.
Because the laser is good against things that are stealthy, e.g. things that are coated in materials designed to absorb E.M. radiation.
Am I missing something here? Don't you need a radar to find the thing you are painting with the laser? I don't really see how this helps beat stealth technology but I will admit that my knowledge of this area is minimal.
Just like you don't see abortion in there. Or contraceptives. Or gay sex. But, let me assure you, it's in there somewhere. You just aren't looking hard enough.
Of course, there are prodigies who can do excellent work with self teaching, but separating them from the chaff (and overcoming their egos) is rarely worth the time in my experience.
This is basically what it all comes down to. There are risks that come with hiring employees. Narrowing your selection to those with 4 year degrees or more minimizes that risk as much as possible.
In my experience the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" standpoint holds up whether or not you have a good excuse for your ignorance. The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid and a notice that my license had been suspended to be sent to the wrong address. I was later charged with driving with a suspended license after an accident a few months later. I discovered what had happened after some digging at the bureau of public records. I explained what had happened to the judge and he told me the ignorance of the law is ones own fault period. The fact that the state had tried to contact me was sufficient on their part. It is always your responsibility to become informed of the law regardless of any difficulties you have.
That judge is an idiot. You weren't ignorant of the laws. You were ignorant of the facts. Sorry that happened.
Fair catch. But win this one in court and then they just point out that it says nothing about guaranteed rates. Used more then 1Gb? 1Kbyte/sec maximum it is for you then.
there *HAS* to be some lawyer out there who's good enough to get a judge to realize that this is nothing but false advertising, and some pretty obvious bait-and-switch tactics.
Oh there no doubt is. But the people who want him to fight the case can't afford his fees, and the people who would prefer he didn't can afford to keep him busy elsewhere.
Do you really think the insurance companies didn't want this? This bill is a huge victory for them. You now have no choice other than to buy their products.
That same committee says the cheapest premium for families under the democrat plan will be over $5000 more than under the republican plan. Enjoy paying more for less! The american way.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this plane the cause of all the sonic booms that were heard out west a couple years back?
http://farshores.org/n06boom6.htm
or more recent ones:
http://boingboing.net/2009/03/06/mystery-sonic-boom-i.html
If those inventions do anything useful at all, there is already plenty of incentive to bring them to market: making money from them.
Sure, however, if the invention is easily copied, there is less of an incentive to bring it to market because a competitor can simply copy it without having to expend the initial resources to invent it.
Only for inventions that can be kept secret, is it necessary to give inventors an incentive to share them anyway.
Patent law won't help you here because a trade secret would be more beneficial to the inventor. Trade secret protection can last indefinitely.
Many patents have been acquired long after the actual invention has been done and used in the market.
If that is true, then the patent is invalid. You can only get a patent on an invention prior to the invention being known to the public. A problem with software patents is that the Patent Office does not have the resources to determine if a software invention is already known or obvious.
But that's only necessary for patents that can be kept secret.
You can't keep a patent secret. In fact, if you fail to disclose required elements of the invention within the patent, the patent is invalid.
There is a mountain of literature on the incentives debate. We could go on for days on that issue alone. Let's not.
1. Patents don't require you to bring anything to market. In fact, a common use of patents is to simply obtain the patent and use it extract money from someone else who wants to bring the product to market. As long as you're the first person to apply, you get money without having to actually sell anything.
That's correct but the public still benefits from the disclosure requirement.
2. There's already an incentive to bring new inventions to market: namely, the money you get from selling them. If you design a better mousetrap, you'll sell a lot of mousetraps before your competitors catch on.
There is definitely a first to market advantage in some industries but I find that it is often due to marketing and brand recognition.
20 years later, sure. The problem is, innovation is stalled for 20 years in the meantime.
Not if the second inventor obtains a license from the first inventor.
In addition, the design around incentive is also beneficial because the public will then have an entirely new innovation.
If you are against the patent system entirely, I invite you to compare the economies of nations with strong IP law with the economies of those countries that have weak or no IP law.
Nothing I said goes against what you said. My only point here is that patent protection is good for inventions that are easily reversed engineered. It creates the incentive for inventors to bring those types of inventions to market, which benefits society.
I assume the original poster said that patent protection isn't required for inventions "that can easily be examined and cloned" because the disclosure required by a patent would not be necessary. My point is that those types of inventions would never be revealed to the public because the inventor will not waste resources on them. Patents give the inventor a reason to reveal those inventions to the public, which in turn, allows other inventors to build on them and obtain new patents. Society benefits again and the process repeats itself.
He claims that patents aren't intended for the benefit of the inventors, but for the benefit of society.
Well he is wrong because he fails to consider the incentives that patent protection creates.
Not really. Inventors often decide between patent protection and trade secret protection. Patent protection is useful when the invention is easily reverse engineered but the trade off is the limited time of protection. Trade secret protection is useful for inventions that are not easily reverse engineered because protection can last indefinitely. You can't have both patent and trade secret protection.
An invention that can easily be examined and cloned doesn't need patent protection.
Did you mean to say "that can't easily be cloned"?
If you read any of these emails, you will see that these same scientists are contributors to RealClimate.
Tuna is in the Atlantic and gulf also.
Because the laser is good against things that are stealthy, e.g. things that are coated in materials designed to absorb E.M. radiation.
Am I missing something here? Don't you need a radar to find the thing you are painting with the laser? I don't really see how this helps beat stealth technology but I will admit that my knowledge of this area is minimal.
Just like you don't see abortion in there. Or contraceptives. Or gay sex. But, let me assure you, it's in there somewhere. You just aren't looking hard enough.
Of course, there are prodigies who can do excellent work with self teaching, but separating them from the chaff (and overcoming their egos) is rarely worth the time in my experience.
This is basically what it all comes down to. There are risks that come with hiring employees. Narrowing your selection to those with 4 year degrees or more minimizes that risk as much as possible.
In my experience the "ignorance of the law is no excuse" standpoint holds up whether or not you have a good excuse for your ignorance. The police once copied down my address incorrectly on a ticket (they ignored my correct address on the copy of the ticket I mailed in) causing a summons to court, a notice of default judgement against me, a notice that my ticket was unpaid and a notice that my license had been suspended to be sent to the wrong address. I was later charged with driving with a suspended license after an accident a few months later. I discovered what had happened after some digging at the bureau of public records. I explained what had happened to the judge and he told me the ignorance of the law is ones own fault period. The fact that the state had tried to contact me was sufficient on their part. It is always your responsibility to become informed of the law regardless of any difficulties you have.
That judge is an idiot. You weren't ignorant of the laws. You were ignorant of the facts. Sorry that happened.
that someone still actually watches CNN.
necessary evils
It says quite clearly, "unlimited data".
Fair catch. But win this one in court and then they just point out that it says nothing about guaranteed rates. Used more then 1Gb? 1Kbyte/sec maximum it is for you then.
there *HAS* to be some lawyer out there who's good enough to get a judge to realize that this is nothing but false advertising, and some pretty obvious bait-and-switch tactics.
Oh there no doubt is. But the people who want him to fight the case can't afford his fees, and the people who would prefer he didn't can afford to keep him busy elsewhere.
that's where class action suits come in
The reason they want to tie it in with the irs is because congress may tax and spend for the general welfare. It won't pass under the commerce clause.
But whoring out is a right!
The car analogy fails because driving is a privilege. You can choose to not drive.
Government interference is the cause of high health costs. This isn't going to fix that.
Do you really think the insurance companies didn't want this? This bill is a huge victory for them. You now have no choice other than to buy their products.
Democrats screwing over poor people!? Never!
That same committee says the cheapest premium for families under the democrat plan will be over $5000 more than under the republican plan. Enjoy paying more for less! The american way.
Gotta pay off your donors. It's much easier to hide those payments in 2000 pages than in a couple hundred.
You have read all 2000 pages?