Do patents help or hinder the development of society?

[wum]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

Do you need me to spell it out for you?

I've got a couple idea in the middle of being patented right now, I know the process.

You DO NOT have to develop ANYTHING in order to patent it. Now why don't you think before you post.

you stupid fuck, i never said it was a lot of money to ATTAIN a patent, it's just that when you're developing a new technology all by yourself, that in itself is what costs money.

[Leviathan]

You have alot to learn... patents don't stop competitors from entering a market space, so I'm not sure how you figure they promote monopolies. A competitor just has to do it differently. The fuel cell is a bad example... by your logic Ballard should have a monopoly on the fuel cell market, but guess what, they don't. BTW the fuel cell has been public knowledge since the 1800's when it was invented.

Originally Posted by wum

the inflation in cost comes from the patent on technologies that your competitor can't use.

so it becomes less about entrepreneurship and more about protectionism.

[Leviathan]

I hate to break it to you, but I've been working in a start up fuel cell company for over 4 years now and have been involved with everything in which you speak.

Guess what, your out to lunch. Your the type of person who likes to think they have a clue but you really have no experience or real world knowledge to back up your claims.

Originally Posted by wum

you stupid fuck, i never said it was a lot of money to ATTAIN a patent, it's just that when you're developing a new technology all by yourself, that in itself is what costs money.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

You have alot to learn... patents don't stop competitors from entering a market space, so I'm not sure how you figure they promote monopolies. A competitor just has to do it differently. The fuel cell is a bad example... by your logic Ballard should have a monopoly on the fuel cell market, but guess what, they don't. BTW the fuel cell has been public knowledge since the 1800's when it was invented.

competitors are not neccesarrily prevented from selling the new technology, but they have to pay royalties... which are passed onto the consumer (which inflates the cost).

[wum]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

I hate to break it to you, but I've been working in a start up fuel cell company for over 4 years now and have been involved with everything in which you speak.

Guess what, your out to lunch. Your the type of person who likes to think they have a clue but you really have no experience or real world knowledge to back up your claims.

so lemme get this straight. You're trying to invalidate this statement:

Developing new technologies costs money

circle one

yes/no

[Leviathan]

If you license someone elses technology sure, you'll pay a fee.

There is more then one way to skin a cat.

Example:

Ballard has a shitload of patents on fuel cells but there are alot more companies out there producing fuel cells and not paying Ballard 1 single cent and guess what, these companies have patents around similiar things like flow field technology

[dabbler]

(@ wum)

[Leviathan]

I am invalidating this statement because its just not true.

"For example, say you developed a new technology that made car engines ten times more fuel-efficient. Currently, the government would grant you a patent, which more or less enforces a monopoly on this technology and you become rich and your product’s cost is unnaturally bloated because of it."

I never said it doesn't cost money to develop technology, I said that you don't necessarily need anything but a piece of paper with an idea on it to get a patent.

[cubed]

lets see...

wum - loves to make grand false generalizations, enjoys skewing the truth to fit his own brand of fucked up black and white logic, obviously has no clue about what's going on and is merely fighting to maintain some shred of dignity before his ass is handed to him.

leviathan - has been working with a fuel cell integration company for over 4 years and is an integral part of a team developing this technology. not to mention a vast knowledge of the subject due to real world experience.

In closing, wum stop posting now before you look dumber than you already do. You have about as much knowledge in this subject as a gibbon would teaching an advanced thermal chemistry class.

[cubed]

contrary to popular belief wummy, the world isn't black and white.

[Leviathan]

I agree with Dabbler on this though, it sounds more like your just trying to spout off some sort of communist vs freemarket crap.... and yes I understand a true freemarket doesn't exist before you spout off more about that.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

I am invalidating this statement because its just not true.

"For example, say you developed a new technology that made car engines ten times more fuel-efficient. Currently, the government would grant you a patent, which more or less enforces a monopoly on this technology and you become rich and your product’s cost is unnaturally bloated because of it."

I never said it doesn't cost money to develop technology, I said that you don't necessarily need anything but a piece of paper with an idea on it to get a patent.

well that's nice, but I never made the claim it did.

[wum]

Originally Posted by cubed

lets see...

wum - loves to make grand false generalizations, enjoys skewing the truth to fit his own brand of fucked up black and white logic, obviously has no clue about what's going on and is merely fighting to maintain some shred of dignity before his ass is handed to him.

leviathan - has been working with a fuel cell integration company for over 4 years and is an integral part of a team developing this technology. not to mention a vast knowledge of the subject due to real world experience.

In closing, wum stop posting now before you look dumber than you already do. You have about as much knowledge in this subject as a gibbon would teaching an advanced thermal chemistry class.

your an opportunistic cumstain, and you bring absolutely nothing to the table as usual.

[dabbler]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

I agree with Dabbler on this though, it sounds more like your just trying to spout off some sort of communist vs freemarket crap.... and yes I understand a true freemarket doesn't exist before you spout off more about that.

can't remember the other threads, but i seem to recall thinking the same thing about a few more of wum's posts. definitely a thought process similiar to communist beliefs.

[esoter1c]

Without Patents Everything Would Be Garbage Some Hick Made In His Garage Over A Couple Of Brews And An 8 Ball.

Welcome To The Industrialized, Civilized, Socialized World.

[wum]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

If you license someone elses technology sure, you'll pay a fee.

There is more then one way to skin a cat.

Example:

Ballard has a shitload of patents on fuel cells but there are alot more companies out there producing fuel cells and not paying Ballard 1 single cent and guess what, these companies have patents around similiar things like flow field technology

WHICH IS EXACTLY THE CASE I WAS MAKING.

PATENTS CREATE EXTRA COSTS FOR THE CONSUMER AND BUREAUCRACY FOR THE COMPETITORS.

[wum]

OKAY WHAT THE FUCK.

I'M TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT PATENTS AND YOU MAKE ME SPEND 20 MINUTES DEBATING OVER THE APPLICATION COSTS OF A PATENT FORM.

LIKE I WOULD WASTE A WHOLE FUCKING THREAD TO DEBATE THAT.

[cubed]

Originally Posted by wum

your an opportunistic cumstain, and you bring absolutely nothing to the table as usual.

aaawww, did I strike a chord?

It has nothing to do with being an "opportunist", for the most part I ignore a majority of your posts, mainly because the validity of them is completely lacking.

You hate me because I'm right.

It tears you up inside doesn't it?

I look forward to laughing at more of your "first year I've got the world figured out" rhetoric.

[dabbler]

Originally Posted by wum

LIKE I WOULD WASTE A WHOLE FUCKING THREAD TO DEBATE THAT.

u just did.

[wum]

Originally Posted by cubed

You hate me because I'm right.

oh yeah


I might be inclined to agree, that is if you had the capacity to say one relevant thing about this topic.

You're worse than Leviathan who for all his so-called "qualifications" has as the whole thrust of his argument the fucking cost of patent application forms. Thanks for that utterly useless Red Herring, really! :)

Anyway, if someone wants to talk about the topic at hand, please do.



wum.

[Leviathan]

^ are you that stupid, do I really need to explain it to you in gr. 1 terms?

you have absolutley no idea how the development process works. The majority of development costs are NOT usually in circumventing patents, jesus christ get that through your head. A patent usually comes out of the development process and costs maybe an extra 15 - 30 grand. I can't believe you can't see the flaw to your agrument.

Using the Ballard example AGAIN. By your logic all other companies fuel cells should cost more per kW because they had to circumvent some of Ballards patents but guess what. This is not the case! Just because there is a patent on something does not mean that its the cheapest way to do it, somebody else can come along and do the same thing with a different process that is cheaper and get a patent on that. go figure.

AND guess what.... a company can mitigate extra development costs by producing in volume, unlike "mom and pop" shops.

[Leviathan]

On a side note, what are your qualifications Wum?

[cubed]

Wum, you should read some of Ayn Rand's works.
Atlas Shrugged is a book that simplifies how a totally communist system gives rise to absolute laziness.
There is no development in communist countries because there is no competition.

You're such an oxymoron. Right wing religious beliefs coupled with left winged economic ideology. Weirdo.

ps. diva from cubed's account because i have you on my ignore list

[wum]

Originally Posted by Leviathan

^ are you that stupid, do I really need to explain it to you in gr. 1 terms?

you have absolutley no idea how the development process works. The majority of development costs are NOT usually in circumventing patents, jesus christ get that through your head. A patent usually comes out of the development process and costs maybe an extra 15 - 30 grand. I can't believe you can't see the flaw to your agrument.

for fuck's sake...

I'm not talking about the money it takes to get a patent (which should've been obvious ages ago), I was talking about the money it takes to develop an idea. PATENT PROCESS NOTWITHSTANDING SO FUCK OFF WITH THE RIGAMAROLE OF RE-EXPLAINING THIS IRRELAVANT POINT.

Originally Posted by Leviathan

Using the Ballard example AGAIN. By your logic all other companies fuel cells should cost more per kW because they had to circumvent some of Ballards patents but guess what. This is not the case! Just because there is a patent on something does not mean that its the cheapest way to do it, somebody else can come along and do the same thing with a different process that is cheaper and get a patent on that. go figure.

AND guess what.... a company can mitigate extra development costs by producing in volume, unlike "mom and pop" shops.

Okay...
You just answered your own question. They are using a different process. Kudos to their innovation.

My point is different. I'm saying it hurts society, for example that India situation where the drug companies have patents on generic drugs making them too expensive to the general population.

If it didn't have those governmental controls, it would obviously be a lot cheaper.

see, i'm not such a bad guy :)

[wum]

Originally Posted by cubed

Wum, you should read some of Ayn Rand's works.
Atlas Shrugged is a book that simplifies how a totally communist system gives rise to absolute laziness.
There is no development in communist countries because there is no competition.

You're such an oxymoron. Right wing religious beliefs coupled with left winged economic ideology. Weirdo.

ps. diva from cubed's account because i have you on my ignore list

Hi Diva!



A freemarket is devoid of competition? *scratches head*