Josh Asbury Il y a 15 années Ray,You hit the nail on the head. I agree with you 100%. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler Ray Augé Josh Asbury Il y a 15 années Glad to hear it Josh! Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler
Ray Augé Josh Asbury Il y a 15 années Glad to hear it Josh! Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler
Amos Fong Il y a 15 années I agree, but aren't patents necessary to drive capitalism? Otherwise companies would have no incentive to innovate or invent.Would Google or Microsoft be around if there were no patents? Perhaps patents have helped humanity by driving people to create better technology/products. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler Ray Augé Amos Fong Il y a 15 années I disagree! There are many other vehicles in the world which drive innovation. Necessity is a far greater incentive to innovate. Real human need is incentive. Patents only ever close doors. They never open them.Open source is proof that innovation can exist without patents. In fact, a significant portion of the world will agree that OS is the way to develop software. Why does it have to stop with software?Without patents industry innovates faster because there is "real" competition, because the "best" product will win. But being the "best" is a moving target, so competition is perpetual, and in a strongly competitive market this leads to many good "choices".Perhaps specific entities which currently exist would no longer exist because they could not have survived without having been backed by patents, but would their technology also not exist? I dare argue the contrary. How many doors have been closed by large conglomerates who themselves have decided the fate of ideas. How much better off might we be if those doors could have been open.There is a company that developed a knock-off aids treatment for a fraction of the cost. They were shutdown because another pharmacom had a patent on a portion of their compound. Did the price of other treatments ever come down? Did this innovative product ever finally make it to market? No!This is the prerogative of patent holders. You have no choice in the matter at all. These are not even elected officials and they control your fate with regard to the patented concept, idea, technology. It's simply too much power.A big company can effectively roadblock innovation and funnel it down a path they themselves have modeled. We've all seen this before and it's not right. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler Jorge Ferrer Ray Augé Il y a 15 années Nice post Ray!I fully agree with you. Patents were a good idea in theory and they've probably been positive in the past, but IMHO today they only have negative efects in most if not all industries. Not only I think patents are not necessary to innovate in most areas, I actually think they are counterproductive because many lines of investigation are cut due to the fear of patents and a lot of money ends up going to lawyers instead of to research. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler Ray Augé Jorge Ferrer Il y a 15 années ++1 Jorge! Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler Tibor Kiss Amos Fong Il y a 14 années No, patents aren't the necessary drive capitalism.Competition and savings are the drive of capitalism. Patents are against competition. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler
Ray Augé Amos Fong Il y a 15 années I disagree! There are many other vehicles in the world which drive innovation. Necessity is a far greater incentive to innovate. Real human need is incentive. Patents only ever close doors. They never open them.Open source is proof that innovation can exist without patents. In fact, a significant portion of the world will agree that OS is the way to develop software. Why does it have to stop with software?Without patents industry innovates faster because there is "real" competition, because the "best" product will win. But being the "best" is a moving target, so competition is perpetual, and in a strongly competitive market this leads to many good "choices".Perhaps specific entities which currently exist would no longer exist because they could not have survived without having been backed by patents, but would their technology also not exist? I dare argue the contrary. How many doors have been closed by large conglomerates who themselves have decided the fate of ideas. How much better off might we be if those doors could have been open.There is a company that developed a knock-off aids treatment for a fraction of the cost. They were shutdown because another pharmacom had a patent on a portion of their compound. Did the price of other treatments ever come down? Did this innovative product ever finally make it to market? No!This is the prerogative of patent holders. You have no choice in the matter at all. These are not even elected officials and they control your fate with regard to the patented concept, idea, technology. It's simply too much power.A big company can effectively roadblock innovation and funnel it down a path they themselves have modeled. We've all seen this before and it's not right. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler Jorge Ferrer Ray Augé Il y a 15 années Nice post Ray!I fully agree with you. Patents were a good idea in theory and they've probably been positive in the past, but IMHO today they only have negative efects in most if not all industries. Not only I think patents are not necessary to innovate in most areas, I actually think they are counterproductive because many lines of investigation are cut due to the fear of patents and a lot of money ends up going to lawyers instead of to research. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler Ray Augé Jorge Ferrer Il y a 15 années ++1 Jorge! Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler
Jorge Ferrer Ray Augé Il y a 15 années Nice post Ray!I fully agree with you. Patents were a good idea in theory and they've probably been positive in the past, but IMHO today they only have negative efects in most if not all industries. Not only I think patents are not necessary to innovate in most areas, I actually think they are counterproductive because many lines of investigation are cut due to the fear of patents and a lot of money ends up going to lawyers instead of to research. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler Ray Augé Jorge Ferrer Il y a 15 années ++1 Jorge! Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler
Ray Augé Jorge Ferrer Il y a 15 années ++1 Jorge! Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler
Tibor Kiss Amos Fong Il y a 14 années No, patents aren't the necessary drive capitalism.Competition and savings are the drive of capitalism. Patents are against competition. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler
Tibor Kiss Il y a 14 années Patents are crime against humanity also from the perspective of the free market. Here are some articles about it:Seen and Unseen Cost of Patents - http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker126.htmlDo Patents Save Our Lives? - http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker132.htmlAgainst intellectual monopoly - http://mises.org/story/3298The Evil of Patents - http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker126.htmlDoes Monopoly Create Wealth? - http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker124.html Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler
Ákos Gábriel Il y a 11 années I still agree with the statements of this post. Would be interesting to read others' opinions. Veuillez vous identifier pour voter. Répondre en tant que ... Annuler