>> I'm more concerned of the reverse. You develop an algorithm during
>> the course of writing a program, only to find out it's patented.
>Then you're SOL. Once someone patents it, you can't use it (unless you
>challenge the patent and win).
I'll be damned if I have the time, money or desire to run to the
patent office every time I create an algorithm, just to make sure
somebody else didn't already patent it. I don't want to bother
taking out a patent on each of the many algorithms I write in the
process of creating a program, either.
Quote:>> I also think the public good should be taken into account, that
>> if some invention would serve a "great good", that the inventor's
>> rights should not extend so far as to deny the use. IOW, an
>> inventor should have rights to reasonable royalties, but not to
>> deny others from using something, just because he and his lawyers
>> were the first in line for the award.
>I disagree. My company spends 7-9% of revenues on R&D. If someone else
You don't think the public interest should be taken into account?
Quote:>could just use our inventions, it would destroy our competitiveness. We
>would spend the money, but they would be able to sell it cheaper because
>they don't spend money on R&D. Even if they give us a royalty, it would
>not reimburse us for our expenditures or the risk that we'll spend all
>this money and not achieve anything useful.
What if it did reimburse you (as it should).
Quote:>Our current situation works very well. Patents are useful and are
>necessary for companies to invest heavily in research.
Sure, but I think the system can and should be improved. There are
many cases where it would behoove a company to keep something off
the market. Something that could save lives, but darn it, the company
would make more profit by selling the old technology.
For an urban legend example, the oil company that invents some device
that lets cars get a zillion miles per gallon. They *have* to find
those things, patent them, and keep them off the market.
Or perhaps a drug that can cure a dread disease for pennies, when
a more expensive, more profitable drug is already on their list of
patents.
In fact, the patent office does take the public good into account
when it comes to "national defense" (read "weapons), in which case
the patent is sequestered, and can be taken by emminent domain just
like any other property - with due compensation.
I realize the importance of profits and R+D investment, and of course
that's the reason for patents in the first place.
What I don't think is right is for a patent holder to keep something
from being used by someone who -by coincidence- discovers the same
thing on his own.
I don't think *absolute* ownership is always right.
by