[SteveA]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I don't think you're grasping a huge flaw in your argument here... I was being sarcastic when I was referring to cumbayah... Going back to the Wright Brothers example... You ask why wouldn't the Wright Brothers charge a reasonable price for the rights to build such an invention. I'm not saying they wouldn't try to, i'm saying no one would buy.

You missed the idea. I didn't say the Wright brothers could try to sell a right to build airplanes. That's still patent system thinking. What did the Wright brothers actually create - a discovery of how to build a flying machine. So that's what they sell - the discovery. You can't take away someone elses right to try to build flying machines. There had already been many people pursuing this same goal, even at the time of the Wright brothers. That would be theft of others peoples work. So they just sell their discovery to the "public" (a.k.a. any other people who want it). Which would be many people and a very lucrative discovery, without the need to patent it as if it were a single physical object for trade.

Or, going to the toasters again... Let's say you build a brilliant toaster and put it on the market for $20.

No, my labor would not be worth $20 because, as you said, you can be a producer of it by replicating it so it would be worth a lot to you. Maybe you could earn millions, while I only receive $20.

So instead I sell you (and whoever else might be interested) the prototype and blueprints for a large percent of the expected profits, and then you guys can take the idea and run with it from there. I don't have to worry about patents or controlling distribution etc. and the profits you earn from it aren't restricted either.

I don't understand why you can't grasp this concept.

Don't worry the feeling is mutual :)

Wherein every company that DIDN'T put in an "offer" buys one dose of the cure, spends 15 minutes in a lab analyzing it, and comes out with their own without all those pesky research costs to recoup.

True, but then again if they desire to have the information and it isn't physically available for them to see, then they can't analyze anything.

Here, let's try another example - I come up with a great idea for a new carburator for cars. Who is this valuable too - car manufacturers. I sell the benefits of the invention/discovery to car manufacturers. If some don't see any imminent value that they want to make use of, then they don't pay me. They can just wait a few months after I release it to other car companies (who did pay me) and copy it - fine. They didn't see enough of a value to encourage it's release, so that's no problem but then again if I felt it really were worth more I could hold out and see if people would increase the offers. If in the meantime they discovered it for themselves and paid me nothing, that's fine also - apparently it wasn't novel enough to have been restricted anyway and my imagined monopoly on the idea was wrong.

So, yes, the information would eventually spread to people who didn't pay to use it but as long as the inventor has felt satisfactorily compensated to release the information, then there's no party that has been harmed.

Ok, I will, for $49.95 at Electronics Boutique when it comes out, wherein i will take your source code, cut and paste it into my own program, and put mine on the market for $20 See the problem?

Yes, you didn't read what I've posted.

The fact that you, a self-proclaimed inventor and programmer who probably could stand to earn a few patents in his lifetime, understands neither the business nor the legal reasons why the patent system is important to nurturing innovation is the clearest proof I have ever seen why the job of patent attorney is not only possible but essential.

Now if you understood it this time, I'd appreciate an apology.

Don't worry. I can't say I haven't misunderstood some ideas too. It happens. Learn and move on.