(Yet another) IP question

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but there are other things (most notably pharmacuticals) that cost large amounts to research. No one is going to spend billions on research if they know their product is going to get ripped off and sold for only what materials cost to make it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where would those billions of dollars go? What stuff is not being developed and invested in because patentable items have higher profit margins?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thousands of them and thousands more would drop out of development without patent protection. Development ideas are approved in companies with barely sufficient projected ROI every day. Take away patent protection and their ROIs drop below threshold and they would be denied.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets just say that hypothetically tomorrow an amendment to the constitution is passed which will end patent protection in the year 2022 in the US, other major countries don't threaten embargoes against the US because of copycats. The billions of dollars of capital that are currently going into areas that receive heavy benefits from IP protection is still in existence. Where does it go?

[/ QUOTE ]

To a large extent, it doesnt go anywhere, because most of the projects that are profitable without IP protection are already being funded. That slows down productivity growth and eventually leads to recession. Some businesses may have projects that would not be funded in competition with patentable projects that are more profitable, but those are not going to be the kinds of innovations that help grow an economy.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
timotheeeee,
It's true, Patents add incentives to inventors. Incentives don't come out of no where, so who or what is on the receiving end of the disincentives? There you will find your answer about the negatives of IP law. IMO they are the innovators, instead of the inventors and those who research non patentable things.
Invention is just one step in creating a useful product, take Windows for example. Xerox came up with the original idea for the interface which Windows was based on, but because of a series of things that they didn't do well (marketing) no one wanted to buy it. Microsoft and Apple come along and co-opt it, make a few adjustments and the product takes off. IP makes it harder to improve on where a product is lacking since you need the creators permission.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false. In order for a patent to be issued, a working model, or plan is required. If you invent x, and I improve it by inventing y, I can recieve a patent on y. Y does not require your permission. Technically as it stands now you probably could prevent me from manufacturing x, but you couldn’t stop me from manufacturing y. Realistically, it would not be in your interest to prevent me from manufacturing x at all.

Your example isn’t a good one.

Patents are defensive, not offensive.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can only speak for patents in the field of IT.
I believe the way it is handled currently (in the US) is a tax on the software industry as a whole.
Or maybe a transfer program from the software industry to the law industry (of course I will not mention that a lot of legislators come from a law background).

[/ QUOTE ]

Software patents are really bothersome, mostly because software has already been traditionally covered by copyright.

Imagine if, in addtion to the copyright on "Oops I did it again" Britney Spears (for some reason I doubt she wrote that song but let's go with it) also got a patent on "Teenybopper bubble-gum pop music".

[/ QUOTE ]

"Death Star Objection" Imagine Darth Vader getting a patent on child birth....

I'm disappointed pvn.

[clowntable]

[ QUOTE ]
Patents are defensive, not offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say the line is very blurry. If one conciders atomic weapons defensive then this holds otherwise I'm not so sure.

Software patent portfolios are build by all major software companies with a cold war mentamlity of "If you sue me I'll sue you and we both go down in flames"

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but there are other things (most notably pharmacuticals) that cost large amounts to research. No one is going to spend billions on research if they know their product is going to get ripped off and sold for only what materials cost to make it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where would those billions of dollars go? What stuff is not being developed and invested in because patentable items have higher profit margins?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I took so long Tol, I'm away from home right now.

In any case, I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you saying that the Pharm industry is making hard-on pills and not cancer drugs because they're more profitable. If so, this is certainly the case, but it's the case in any system that's not 100% centrally planned, money wins out.

I don't think patents have a large effect on what drugs we make. We make them largely on consumer need. People complain that there isn't a cure for AIDS, but its not because no one is doing any research, it's because we are no closer to curing that then we are the common cold. In short, viruses are a bitch.

Secondly, I've heard some people lament that we only get treatments now, no cures. Well this is sort of true, but you have to remember, patents don't really encourage this. Patents are good for 7 years, and many don't run the full length (damn lawsuits) so having an 80 year treatment plan does little good when you consider that every generic lab in the world is going to be undercutting you in a max of 7 years.

Cody