>Actually, I favor no patent or IP restrictions. I do not know of any >way to prevent gaming the system, and I think the benefits of the >system, as implemented, are outweighed by the costs, several of which >Dan mentioned.
Lets assume that companies that innovated got nothing more than a few months head start on the competition copying them. In that case, innovation would only happen when the few months paid for all the R&D. Otherwise, the smart move would be to always wait for the other guy to do all the hard work. As flawed as things are, as much as it doesn't favor the smaller guys, I'm in favor of a system that allows those that create wealth to at least sometimes keep some of it. If you look at the last 1500 years, you will see that the increase in wealth per worker is due to innovations. Occasionally, as with Wal-Mart, the innovations are not patentable but hard to copy. But, mostly, they are brand new thing, but once shown..quite copyable. In particular, the high cost of drug development and the relative low cost of production would mean that, without patent protection, there would be few if any new drugs. Only fools would throw hundreds of millions in the toilet. BTW, I chose IP gaming examples because that's what I know best. The entire legal system is subject to gaming....why do you think there are so many lawyers who make so much money compared to those folks who create wealth who make less? Dan M. Dan M. Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
