Scott Ingram wrote: >>> >>>Yeah, but without patent protection, nobody would have invested a >>>dime in the research necessary to create that genetic test. >>> >> >>Good I don't want them to invest a dime I want them to invest effort based >>on it's useful outcome to humanity. > > > Useful outcome to humanity is fine in the long run, but in the short run, I > have to pay the mortgage with dimes. > ... as well as the grocer, the kid who shovels my driveway... > That is the problem. If you take away the incentive, a guarenteed monopoly, private companies will not do the research. There are a couple of answers, one is a public interest clause, in which say the government buys the patent out. Another is increased public funding for areas of research where its better to not have monopolies. There are also problems with approach, you tend to get targeting of research into areas where there will be a high return. In the medical industry this tends to mean, diseases that affect wealthy people. > I keep on telling them that my work will have a useful outcome for humanty, > but they just look at me cockeyed and hold their hands out for dimes. > > I say, "Hey, this is for HUMANITY". They say, "Who the hell are you to tell > us what's good for humanity?" > > I reply, "Humanity does!". > > They say, "Well, when humanity shows up, have them talk to OUR landlords and > grocers for us, then we'll see about shoveling your driveway, feeding you > and housing you". Then they walk away. > > Man, when humanity shows up, my grocer, banker, and shoveler are gonna be in > SO much trouble! > Substitute Humanity for society, make society pay a decent wage to the scientists and then there grocer, banker and shoveler get paid and contribute to the well being of the world :) Andrew.