Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (169881)	8/25/2005 5:00:47 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What you are presenting is the general public's opinion of patents and it is somewhat how it worked once upon a time. But this is no longer the case. Aside from the "mistakes" by the patent examiner which is far more common than you may think and it in effect prevents independent innovators who cannot foot the bill to just leave the market (for example, I know of a company who has patented screwing cameras to the panel to prevent them from shifting!)...anyway, aside from this very common problem, the life of patents and copyrights have been extended way too long and way too inappropriately. Case in point is the copyright on Mickey Mouse. After nearly 80 years, I think it is time Disney started innovating other worthy characters. Not only the lifespan has been needlessly extended, the laws now do not really require you to innovate. Suppose for example that you notice ginger paste prevents nausea. You can then patent a process that filters out the fibre and the carbs and the rest of semi-obvious material out of ginger and now you can patent the left over juice as anti-nausea drug. After you do this, you can actually sue someone who is selling concentrated ginger juice as a remedy for nausea! Then not only you get to keep this patent for many many years, if along the way you notice that ginger juice prevents inflammation, you can file for the patent of the same thing again, this time as remedy for inflammation. The process can go on forever. Now when it comes to software patents, the situation is a lot more ridiculous. Amazon.com for example got a patent for one-click buy button. At least Amazon wrote a page of code for its patent, but genetic companies are not even doing that. I am sorry, but in their current status, I see no reason to support the IP laws, and I am saying this as someone who has patents in his name. ST