Andrew Bailey wrote: > 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 :) Humanity is the baker, the grocer, and the shoveler. > > Andrew.