Well, irl, companies do this thing called "licensing" and let other companies use their patents. And, post ebay, you practically get a compulsory license unless there is really some equitable reason to issue an injunction against you.
Now, personally speaking, I agree, the system is far from perfect, and perhaps the patent term is a bit long considering our current state of technological super-fast developement, but, thems the legacy systems we will live with at least until my generation gets into power. And, those are policy considerations for your congress. Talk to them.
"see the progress in open source vs commercial ones, "
Well, you're talking about software, and whether or not that is within the useful arts, or is simply authorship of a written work is very much debatable and is a fight liable to come to a court room near you!
"Innovation is the implementation of invention. You're arguing that it will spur invention (though I disagree with that, it will hinder invention too), not that it will spur innovation. It will hinder innovation because it will hinder the implementation of invention."
Meh, different definitions for different folks. People in the field use the two terms invention and innovation synonymously. But you're welcome to make up your own definition.
"though I disagree with that, it will hinder invention too"
Oh really? So what better way to promote innovation than to have published, for all to see, the invention upon which others may build new inventions, and to have, in some small way, rewarded the inventor on the patent's cover?
Trust me, in the useful arts that is the way to spur invention, innovation, or whatever you want to call the base invention itself. Now, there is plenty of patenting going on at the patent office right now which is not directed to subject matter within the useful arts, but that is a different fight under a different statute.
"It will hinder innovation because it will hinder the implementation of invention."
That I agree with under your definitions, in fact, that is exactly what I said above. But, that is the price which we're currently paying to get people to disclose their invention. Otherwise they might just keep em secrit. Now, whether or not that is a good price to pay is debatable, and is a policy question, which you're free to write your congressman about. But I can tell you, when high-dollar powerful folks from industry come in and tell your congressman that they'd like to have patents be the way they are, in so far as the useful arts are concerned, then your congressman will very likely lend them more of their ear than he will lend to you, mr. anon coward of the internet.
"I still think it's important, because in those few cases where it would apply, it get rid of a hindrance to innovation."
Meh. To be clear, it won't hinder innovation, it will spur innovation, indeed, publish it for all to see, the ultimate in spurring innovation. It will only hinder the implementation of innovation. Which of course is probably what you meant, but you could be more tidy and less outraged.
Also, while I have your attention, if you could kindly stop using the word "debunked" forever the rest of the world would appreciate it. It just makes you sound like a nut-case consipiracy theorist. Of course we all know that you're just an economist, or at least that you play one on the internet. And while being an economist puts you close to being a nut-case conspiracy theorist, it doesn't really (necessarily?) make you one.
""As you can see from the amicus briefs, and from a letter previously sent to the Attorney General by over 260 signatories, this is an absolutely pivotal case that threatens the ability of inventors and innovative organizations to survive," "
That is just them being overly damatic prima donnas.
You guys are also missing something that this researcher was probably aware of. They're working with the material itself, they're not inventing applications for it. The material itself has been around for a very long time. See the Wiki article about it.
"An early detailed study on few-layer graphene dates back to 1962."
And there are other papers on the single layered graphene structures as well that are referenced in the wiki. References abound to 102b claims to the material they're using.
The thing is, people just recently started jumping on board because some people figured out that there were some useful properties of this old material that warrented further study.
And, like the guy told him, if the material is all that useful, then they will start cranking out applications for the various "inventions" utilizing the graphene material structure. He wasn't really being arrogant, he was telling the man what was going to happen.
Mike I think you might want to take a look at your history books for what kind of "dial" telephones they were talking about at that time. Those things were a PAIN IN THE ARSE to use and I'm quite sure that a bunch of old senators would not want to use them if they could have an operator do it for them.
Guys, once harddrives get up to the 100 terrabit capacity for your average off the shelf hard drive, pretty much everyone will likely get their hands on a fully loaded record of practically all music/movies ever made. Of course, newly released stuff won't be on there, but, still. It will be fun to see how copyright folks deal with people peddling all the recorded works in human history on the street in china for 50$.
Mike, you have very little idea how much in manufacturing can be kept secret. Even saying such a thing shows off your ignorance. You were like the business guys that used to come into the fab and look around and ask questions about sht that nobody cared about in the fab. You didn't have the slightest clue about wtf the methods were that were being used in the fab. If you did you'd understand that they were closely gaurded company secrets save for the patents they'd take out on some of them. The same is true in all fabs.
"Darryl, I actually worked for Intel back in the 90s, so we're on a subject I'm familiar with. As others have pointed out, Intel's success was due to their *operations* and *manufacturing*. Intel's fabs had much higher yield rates than their competitors. So even when AMD chips are technically better (as they sometimes are) the economics still works strongly in Intel's favor. In other words, even in a world where Intel's chip design is not protected, Intel is still likely to succeed due to their superior manufacturing."
K, so you worked for Intel and say that their manufacturing was superior. What happens when their manufacturing isn't "protected" via method claims in patents? What's to stop AMD from copying their manufacturing methods? Intel would lock that sht up tight as they possibly could. And trust me, Intel has got some pretty nice sht in terms of manufacturing methods disclosed in patents that could have just as well become trade secrets that would have been VERY difficult, if not impossible to "reverse engineer". If you think otherwise you've obviously never tried to reverse engineer microchip fab techniques. You might as well spend money on developing your own methods rather than spending time/money on reverse engineering theirs.
"Studies -- mentioned on this site -- have proven this claim to be totally false, so it's pretty silly for you to make it. I believe the study found that in something like 90% of patent lawsuits, it was clear that the accused had no knowledge of the patent/invention in the first place."
I believe that he was referring to them having seen the "other side's" products etc. then having copied them. Whether or not they had seen the other side's patent is not being discussed by him, to him it is irrelevant.
Now, Mike I agree with you that a lot of the things that are patented these days probably shouldn't be, and I also agree that IP is unethical. It is, on it's face, you guys don't need to delve into philosophy or some nonsense to figure that out. But, on the other hand, if the public wants trade secrets to come out then it has either got to do away with trade secret law and get whatever scraps happen to fall out, or keep some sort of patent system. Note that under the non-patent system with scraps just falling out those would not usually be published and not categorized in any meaningful way both of which the patent system does provide.
Either way though, you need to keep yo sht straight man. With no patent system you're going to have more trade secrets, unquestionably. And furthermore, if you took away trade secret laws then you'd have insane security at companies trying to accomplish trade secret's without the law.
I just saw JMT in concert on Sat night at the 930 club in DC. They were pretty good, but I still kinda wish someone would make a microphone so that you could hear the words they're saying even when the base is so loud your chest feels like it is exploding.