3 ms·

In some ways, this disgusts me. In other ways, I can undersand it's a necessity.

by scep12 14y ago

nickpinkston 14y ago
You can always hate a patent system that can kill innovation like this does. How much technology have we lost due to these types of lawsuits?
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  That's a two-way street. You could equally ask how much technology would be lost/delayed without the ability to get patent protection for it.
  - nickpinkston 14y ago
    Of course - I suspect that most existing tech would exist, but some things (drug discovery) would need to be further subsidized. However, things like drug patents are arguably as apt to be funded as roads or a court system - public health mustn't be held hostage.
    - Jach 14y ago
      The cost of research for a new drug is dwarfed by the cost to get it approved by the FDA, and dwarfed again by further marketing costs. Not to mention most "researched" drugs are just "me-too" copies of financially successful drugs. Not to mention that of the top 46 selling drugs worldwide, 20 of them do not owe their existence to patents. And the case for pharmaceutical patents just gets worse and worse, it's a great case study of patents being totally ineffective in encouraging innovation or benefiting the consumer. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf
      - nickpinkston 14y ago
        Agreed - I struggle to find any area of engineering that would decrease in output in the long term from the striking of patent from our laws.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Well, we don't know that this lawsuit will lose us any technology. I would hope the point of the suit is that this technology already exists and is being sold but some other company is trying to gain funding using the patented idea. If you had no patents I have to imagine you'd lose a lot more technology because there just wouldn't be any reason for any non-super corporation to come up with anything. As soon as someone had a good idea, a big corp could just throw 100 human resources at it and create it before the person with the actual idea could. Having said that, the current system is an embarrassment.

In some ways, this disgusts me. In other ways, I can undersand it's a necessity.

by scep12 14y ago

In some ways, this disgusts me. In other ways, I can undersand it's a necessity.

You can always hate a patent system that can kill innovation like this does. How much technology have we lost due to these types of lawsuits?

anigbrowl 14y ago
That's a two-way street. You could equally ask how much technology would be lost/delayed without the ability to get patent protection for it.
- nickpinkston 14y ago
  Of course - I suspect that most existing tech would exist, but some things (drug discovery) would need to be further subsidized. However, things like drug patents are arguably as apt to be funded as roads or a court system - public health mustn't be held hostage.
  - Jach 14y ago
    The cost of research for a new drug is dwarfed by the cost to get it approved by the FDA, and dwarfed again by further marketing costs. Not to mention most "researched" drugs are just "me-too" copies of financially successful drugs. Not to mention that of the top 46 selling drugs worldwide, 20 of them do not owe their existence to patents. And the case for pharmaceutical patents just gets worse and worse, it's a great case study of patents being totally ineffective in encouraging innovation or benefiting the consumer. http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf
    - nickpinkston 14y ago
      Agreed - I struggle to find any area of engineering that would decrease in output in the long term from the striking of patent from our laws.
flyinRyan 14y ago
Well, we don't know that this lawsuit will lose us any technology. I would hope the point of the suit is that this technology already exists and is being sold but some other company is trying to gain funding using the patented idea. If you had no patents I have to imagine you'd lose a lot more technology because there just wouldn't be any reason for any non-super corporation to come up with anything. As soon as someone had a good idea, a big corp could just throw 100 human resources at it and create it before the person with the actual idea could. Having said that, the current system is an embarrassment.