From: Christian Szegedy (szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de)
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 10:03:42 MDT
Brian D Williams wrote:
> I'll give you a personnal example.
< snip >
> I was told (formally) the idea was considered and rejected.
>
> A few years later we brought out the exact same idea, now called
> "Privacy Manager" it was international telecom product of the year
> and is making us millions, it is the number one requested feature
> in areas that don't even have it.
>
> I have received neither any credit, nor dime one, though a lot of
> other people and the company have made a bunch on it.
This is a very good example, demonstrating a lot of features of the
so called "intellectual properties", especially that of the patent laws:
1) A very simple idea can help to make a lot of money.
2) Mostly, simple ideas are only useful in a special context:
Those people that have the ideas don't have the possibility to
turn it into money directly.
3) Normally a private person having a good idea can't prove that it
was his idea, after communicating it.
4) If you don't communicate your idea, you are not able to make money
out of it.
Logical consequence:
Assume that I have an idea.
I, as normal person (like Brian) would think:
1) I don't have the money and possibility to find out whether my idea is
covered by some patent. (It is practically impossible to tell it for sure,
or with high probablility)
2) It would costs me a lot of money to apply for a patent.
3) Even if I had a patent, it is virtually imossible for me
to sue the big companies if they violate my patent.
I have two choices:
1) I keep my idea for myself. (And wait for the (quite hypothetical) possibility
to turn it into money.)
2) I give it away for free.
(Brian chose option 1, I would choose 2)
Now the question is : what is the patent law good for:
1) It discourages me to communicate my ideas: If there were no patent law,
I had no choice but communicate my idea. Now, there is a theoretical chance
to turn my idea into money, so if I communicated it, I would feel that "my IP"
was stolen.
2) Big companies have a lot of money. They can use patents to threaten private
persons or smaller companies to sue them in order to eliminate competition.
Even if the big company did not have a chance to win the litigations
(since their patent is a crap, or does not apply to the specific case.),
they have a good chance that the person or small company would retreat,
because it can't risk loosing the trial, or simply can't afford a really
good lawyer and other costs.
The bottomline is: The current patent laws have two main effects:
1) Discourage private people to communicate their ideas.
2) Help the big companies to maintain their monopolies.
Is it really worth, or even moral?
Best regards, Christian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:34 MST