Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 16:34:10 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, "P. U. (Uli) Kruppa" <root@pukruppa.de>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use of the UNIX Trademark Message-ID: <20011010163410.O387@blossom.cjclark.org> In-Reply-To: <20011010233539.G83192@lpt.ens.fr>; from rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:35:39PM %2B0200 References: <000601c15084$87edd360$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <1002663600.3bc36eb096ee5@webmail.neomedia.it> <20011009231343.C387@blossom.cjclark.org> <1002731960.3bc479b899603@webmail.neomedia.it> <20011010140126.M387@blossom.cjclark.org> <20011010233539.G83192@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 11:35:39PM +0200, Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> Crist J. Clark said on Oct 10, 2001 at 14:01:26:
> > > programs in the field (or even in other fields)?
> >
> > It depends on the field. Allowing patents can cause a field to
> > boom. If people believe they can make money off of a technology and
> > that they will have patent protection for their discoveries, they may
> > invest great amounts of money and resources into the field.
>
> This is a common claim. The trouble is it is hard to substantiate, or
> test in a controlled way, and depends on too many assumptions (that
> people will not do research except on money; people will not spend
> money on expensive research except for tangible rewards; people will
> not innovate unless they can control the use of their ideas; etc.)
>
> > > It is about this point that I disagree. In general, IMO Science should be
> > > patent-free.
> >
> > That's just not a reasonable view of how the world works. For example,
> > the entire field of medicine would come to an almost complete
> > standstill without patents. HUGE amounts of money are spent developing
> > drugs and devices to be patented.
>
> Reality check: Even *huger* amounts of money are being spent on legal
> budgets to defend those patents. Most drug companies spend much more
> on their legal fees than on research. Moreover, some of them classify
> "marketing research" under "research". The majority of the drugs
> being developed and patented are in fact of little interest to anyone;
> then the drug companies get into the game of marketing their drugs,
> and convincing you, the customer, that you actually need them.
> Naturally, where the sufferers of the disease are mainly from poor
> developing countries, there is not much interest in developing drugs
> for them.
>
> The biggest medical breakthrough in the 20th century was undoubtedly
> Fleming's discovery of antibiotics. This had nothing to do with
> patent protection.
Right, up until post-WWII most antibiotic research was funded by
government. Antibotics were of tremendous importance to the military
for treating battlefield injuries. Post-war, antibotics have been
driven by the evil pharmaceutical industry, Tetracycline: US Patent
No. 2,699,054.
> > Again, drug companies and other
> > research groups freely publish their results in the very rich medical
> > literature due to the fact that they have patents on the
> > technologies. If they didn't have patents, they wouldn't publish the
> > information.
>
> The "other research groups" most certainly would, as they have been
> doing throughout. I don't think you understand what drives research.
I think I do. One thing is always needed for research, money. When I
did research at Johns Hopkins University, we needed money. When I did
research at MIT, we needed money. When I did research at TRW, we
needed money. At universities, our motives were often solely for the
sake of doing more research. The companies that gave us the money were
profit driven.
> > But you agree there needs to be protection. If you have a better way,
> > offer it up. I don't think that the patent system is perfect or that
> > it is not frequently abused[0]. I do believe patents are the best fit
> > we have right now for protecting the IP inherent in computer programs.
>
> It seems to me there is even less justification for patenting computer
> algorithms on economic grounds, than for patenting pharmaceutical
> products. To develop and test a new drug, you do need funding; to
> develop a new algorithm, you certainly don't, other than your salary.
Right, your employer pays you to develop something and your _employer_
expects to own the patent for it. Someone has to pay for the work.
> People will continue to develop such algorithms anyway, as they always
> have, without patent protection.
Sure, some people will. But this is now getting too close to sounding
like we're near plunging into something akin to a GNU license versus
capitalism flame-fest. I'm not going there.
--
Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu
cjclark@jhu.edu
cjc@freebsd.org
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011010163410.O387>