Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You cannot patent a force of nature, even by patent standards. You could patent an anti-grav dolly. Or a hoverboard. But fundamental scientific principles are not patentable. Indeed GM has run into some of this, where it resolved to they can hold the IP of the specific method of modification and even the product of that modification, but not broadly genetic modification.
A patent only covers inventions, Newton didn't invent gravity, Darwin didn't invent evolution, Einstein didn't invent relativity. However Watt did invent the steam engine, Whitney did invent the mechanical Cotton Gin. I did invent 79 methods and processes in software engineering (T12+1 from my monument pyramid)
Indeed patents assist in the transfer of knowledge, because it publishes the invention. The limitation being that the holder has the exclusive right to prohibit others using that invention for the period of patent. The alternative would be a "trade secret" which is where the knowledge is concealed to prevent general exposure of the means to use it, which under unfortunate circumstances can lead to loss of knowledge entirely.
Great that by itself limits the applications of new discoveries and how far people can go and progress these ideas.
Also, once you take away the profit motive, people will have no incentive to hide their discovery. And if they do, the same such thing would have happened in a patent authorized society (which limits cooperation and mutual aid, leading principles of the human psyche).
It sounds like you are an advocate for sanity a rare thing on this board.
Government functions are only valuable because they don't (in most cases) have a profit motive driving their function. If you take away private control of capital and the monetization of trade, organizations would act on mutual aid and a communal level.
A capitalist owner operates a crop field, he has his people working for him. If someone else comes up to produce there but not give him tribute, will they be shot in the face?
My crops are grown on a strict rotation schedule, and if I let a section lay fallow it's for a reason. So if I see you out there wallowing around with a stick trying to "produce" because you don't have any money to buy any equipment, I won't shoot you but I will be more than happy to run you over with one of my capitalist manufactured tractors.
Great that by itself limits the applications of new discoveries and how far people can go and progress these ideas.
Nope, it permits progress by allowing people to see the methods but not use them without license. This even without licensing can provide the momentum to resolve an issue causing problems. Once it works you may then discuss with the original patent holder and cross pollinate your ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Also, once you take away the profit motive, people will have no incentive to hide their discovery. And if they do, the same such thing would have happened in a patent authorized society (which limits cooperation and mutual aid, leading principles of the human psyche).
Once you remove the profit motive you also remove the incentive to make that discovery. Which is better, a new concept that has a time limited period of licensing, or no new concept?
Nope, it permits progress by allowing people to see the methods but not use them without license. This even without licensing can provide the momentum to resolve an issue causing problems. Once it works you may then discuss with the original patent holder and cross pollinate your ideas.
Once you remove the profit motive you also remove the incentive to make that discovery. Which is better, a new concept that has a time limited period of licensing, or no new concept?
Not true at all. Profit motives have never been what motivates new discoveries. University grants, government spending, or science labs. The private industry isn’t responding for inventions, just applications of these inventions.
Look at Tesla, he needed a funder, but he wasn’t doing it for profit.
Furthermore new technology is impossible to measure in the markets, being as it hasn’t been tested, so no private industry would risk their own stock to accomplish it.
Not true at all. Profit motives have never been what motivates new discoveries. University grants, government spending, or science labs. The private industry isn’t responding for inventions, just applications of these inventions.
Look at Tesla, he needed a funder, but he wasn’t doing it for profit.
Furthermore new technology is impossible to measure in the markets, being as it hasn’t been tested, so no private industry would risk their own stock to accomplish it.
BS everything you typed and transmitted and stored used a series of inventions and licensed products that were developed for profit by for profit establishments. I didn't invent stuff for fun, I invented them for wages and bonuses and company stock, which made me reasonably wealthy.
Tesla is using 1980s tech with 2010s software that's licensed. He's not really innovating, more iterating.
BS everything you typed and transmitted and stored used a series of inventions and licensed products that were developed for profit by for profit establishments. I didn't invent stuff for fun, I invented them for wages and bonuses and company stock, which made me reasonably wealthy.
Tesla is using 1980s tech with 2010s software that's licensed. He's not really innovating, more iterating.
You apply technology to boost production, the internet was a state invention. Similarly solar power was not a private invention (nor was broadcast television). The company Tesla uses technology and barter powered inventions that came before them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery
Even lithium batteries (which were a progression from the original batteries) were researched from universities in Germany and elsewhere (with public grants and private donations). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery
Also, I was talking about Nikola Tesla the person, not the company.
You apply technology to boost production, the internet was a state invention. Similarly solar power was not a private invention (nor was broadcast television). The company Tesla uses technology and barter powered inventions that came before them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery
Even lithium batteries (which were a progression from the original batteries) were researched from universities in Germany and elsewhere (with public grants and private donations). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery
Also, I was talking about Nikola Tesla the person, not the company.
TCP/IP was a product of DARPA and coincidentally useful to underpin a global data network. Make no mistake if it didnt function in that role, we'd have a different protocol. However no the internet as you know it was NOT a state invention, not even close.
Tesla the man worked for Edison, then Westinghouse, he held 278 patents conservatively, fell out with Edison about royalty payments and sued Marconi for patent infringement for the invention of Radio (queue 80s hair metal band Tesla and their album "The Great Radio Controversy"). That doesn't sound like a man who was not for profit.
Further since you're going to raise free power, and wireless transmission. Tesla invented products for use. Free power would increase sales of products, as would elimination of wires at a time when not everywhere was wired and powered.
ETA: Lithium Ion batteries, invented Asahi Chemical 1985... da-dahn-Dah! Not government.
TCP/IP was a product of DARPA and coincidentally useful to underpin a global data network. Make no mistake if it didnt function in that role, we'd have a different protocol. However no the internet as you know it was NOT a state invention, not even close.
Tesla the man worked for Edison, then Westinghouse, he held 278 patents conservatively, fell out with Edison about royalty payments and sued Marconi for patent infringement for the invention of Radio (queue 80s hair metal band Tesla and their album "The Great Radio Controversy"). That doesn't sound like a man who was not for profit.
Further since you're going to raise free power, and wireless transmission. Tesla invented products for use. Free power would increase sales of products, as would elimination of wires at a time when not everywhere was wired and powered.
ETA: Lithium Ion batteries, invented Asahi Chemical 1985... da-dahn-Dah! Not government.
Innovations and different applications of technology is not the same as discovery of new technology.
And I don’t particularly like that capitalist used these inventions to expand consumerism.
And Tesla needed the money for funding his research. When it came between his work and money, he chose his work.
Innovations and different applications of technology is not the same as discovery of new technology.
Says the man who never had an idea worth selling. People don't often set put to discover a new technology, because you can't envisage a use for it, and history is littered with orphaned technologies that couldn't be used. What you set out to do is improve something, back in 2000 I was working a project, and suggested we use a method of looking at a subscribers interests and presenting that subscriber with content not strictly within those interests, but relating to one or more of those interests. I remember my first result, was Madden 2001 presented to my VP who was a Tennessee Titans fan, and former RB at college, Madden had Eddie George on the cover, that got me a serious bonus and a visit from the CEO.
Now remember what you were doing in 2001 and I was churning out related content, just like we now receive, algorithmically generated, just like we now do. It was a breakthrough and new tech, but we didn't know it at the time. Only in hindsight did we discover that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
And I don’t particularly like that capitalist used these inventions to expand consumerism.
And Tesla needed the money for funding his research. When it came between his work and money, he chose his work.
Sure he did, and if I had an extra couple of zeroes in the bank or an extra zero on my investment income I'd be doing my own thing researching my own interests, and even though I don't there's stuff in GitHub that's my invention (some of the machine learning analytics for R). That said Tesla still held 278 patents and fell out with Edison for low payments, and sued Marconi for patent infringement. While his motives may have been noble, his methods were the same you rail against.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
