Hey Loco... next time you're in that neighborhood, count the lawyer's
boats & Mercedes.

I know that's true too however the topic was doctors. Lawyers are worse.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

If I have to wait more than 15 or 20 minutes to see a doctor, I leave and
find a new doctor..

My policy is 30 minutes. I was mainly speeking in general terms. How a lot of
doctors treat patients.
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:39:24 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:

(patiently) No David. Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution.


They are? What part of the Constitution guarantees patents?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:39:24 -0400, "Vito" said:

Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution. Currently,
the term of a patent is IIRC 20 years from application, 17 from patent
grant, or in case of medicines, at least 14 years after FDA approval. That's
fine. The problem comes from laws that require consumers to buy from only
one of many suppliers licensed by the patent holder

You haven't thought this one through, Vito. The whole theory behind patents
is that in return for making discoveries public the patent holder should be
able to earn a monopoly profit for a limited period of time. If patent laws
aren't enforced by allowing the holder to stop unlicensed distribution, it's
as if there weren't any patent at all.

You haven't thought it through, Dave. If there were no patents, people
could reverse-engineer new products freely and without risk of
prosecution. Patents give an exclusive licence/protection in return for
publishing the discovery/process. Companies can & do sit on technology
rather than patent it so as to keep the IP in-house.

A lot of the problem is that patents that are patently ridiculous have
been and still are being issued.

PDW

"Horvath" , a lousy excuse for an American, wrote
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:39:24 -0400, "Vito" wrote this
crap:

(patiently) No David. Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution.


They are? What part of the Constitution guarantees patents?

Article 1, Section 8.

But you are somewhat correct. The Constitution doesn't "guarantee" anything,
it merely establishes what government can and cannot legitimately do. In
this case it delegates to congress the authority to make patent laws.

Try reading it some day.

Peter Wiley wrote:
A lot of the problem is that patents that are patently ridiculous have
been and still are being issued.

I think that's true, and a lot of patents are issued to people who have
stolen other's ideas but can afford a better lawyer; still another type
is the patent issued on "concept" rather than a working model.

DSK

In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:39:59 +1100, Peter Wiley
said:

You haven't thought it through, Dave. If there were no patents, people
could reverse-engineer new products freely and without risk of
prosecution. Patents give an exclusive licence/protection in return for
publishing the discovery/process. Companies can & do sit on technology
rather than patent it so as to keep the IP in-house.

They do indeed. But you're going two different directions here. If people
could always reverse-engineer new products, it would be impossible to "sit
on technology." Companies patent some technology and decide not to patent
other technology. One of the factors that influences the decision is whether
it would be possible to reverse engineer the product or process.

Not quite correct - whether it would be economically possible to
reverse-engineer. I run a marine engineering R&D section, in essence. I
have engineers, programmers, a complete electronics lab & heavy
engineering ability. We can build a lot of stuff, but if it's cheaper
to buy, we buy. Now, if all the gear we use was protected by patents
and we couldn't build our own, we wouldn't have that option.

Friend of mine ran an organic chemistry R&D lab for ICI Chemicals. He
said that knowing the composition of the end product wouldn't
necessarily help you much in figuring out how to get there.

The question is whether, if no patent protection were available, companies
would devote the resources to developing new and better products. The theory
behind the patent system is that they would not. I'm inclined to agree.

I'm inclined to disagree. Now, software may be a special case but I
offer the example of open source versus proprietary & protected s/ware.
Companies are hiding behind patents that are trivially obvious and
getting patents on ideas not products. All that and they're still
losing.

As I said, with drugs it gets tricky due to the number of failures to
successes. There does need to be an incentive to innovate. Perhaps a
different reward model is needed. Say for starters, 100X the cost of
all work done to achieve a success plus a percentage royalty on sales,
with open licensing to any manufacturer with the QA needed to produce.
Then manufacturers could compete on their production systems and R&D
firms would make money. Separate the 2 in other words.

A lot of the problem is that patents that are patently ridiculous have
been and still are being issued.

No question about that. One of my former patent partners estimated that 50%
of the patents issued are invalid.

Giving more people a moral justification for ignoring them.

PDW

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 07:54:01 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:

"Horvath" , a lousy excuse for an American, wrote
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 08:39:24 -0400, "Vito" wrote this
crap:

(patiently) No David. Patents are guaranteed in the Constitution.


They are? What part of the Constitution guarantees patents?

Article 1, Section 8.

But you are somewhat correct. The Constitution doesn't "guarantee" anything,
it merely establishes what government can and cannot legitimately do. In
this case it delegates to congress the authority to make patent laws.

Try reading it some day.


Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on
the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and
fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and
current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas,
and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and
for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of
the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof

http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...ranscript.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nothing there about patents. Unless you mean this part:



To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their
respective Writings and Discoveries;

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But that doesn't guatentee patents.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

still another type
is the patent issued on "concept" rather than a working model.


Dave wrote:
The black letter law, at least, is that you can't patent an idea.


Well, that's utter bull****.

There are thousands of patents issued on devices that have been thought
of but not invented yet... the idea is to lock out competition.

For example, xerography. Not to take anything away from Chester Carlson,
but his story is popular lately. He patented the concept of xerography
in 1937 and did not produce a legible xerographic copy for another year
and a half.

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/in...xerography.htm

DSK

Go **** yourself Mr. Poodle. Of course, you're the most seasoned expert at
getting boofoo'd by the RNC, but that's not much qualification.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:31:32 GMT, said:

The black letter law, at least, is that you can't patent an idea.


Nonsense. There are thousands of patents on "Methods"

Ah, we have another expert on patent law in our midst, besides Jon.

Sorry, Bill patents on methods are not patents on ideas.