TheServerSide Symposium, Microsoft Dev Summit, and AOSD Abstraction on your “Code View”
Mar 01

Why the Patent System Inhibits Innovation Today

Open Source, Tech Add comments

Why the Patent System Inhibits Innovation Today looked interesting to me. It does have some good points, but it takes a long time to get to them. The bulk of the commentary surrounds the evolution of open source software.

That is something I talked about over on OpenXource.

I don’t agree that the evolution is purely:

Good code succeeds; bad code fails and dies off.

I think there is a lot of great dead code :) Although, it does get back to “what is good code”?

Here is a little more from the article:

It is a sad fact that genetics and bio-engineering are areas today where so many patents are being awarded. Many of us will recall how U.S.-based Ricetec patented Thai Fragrant Jasmine Rice. With such patents being awarded, especially on human genetics, perhaps this line of thought will not hold true for much longer.

The question arises, if a company can crack the genetic makeup of rice and patent it, control its use and for all intents and purposes, own it, what then will happen with all these patents on human genes? Will it mean that in being born, we are infringing on a number of patents — using the genetic code without a license?

This silly situation started a quarter of a century ago on June 16th, 1980, when some bright microbiologist (who was probably more of a lawyer than a scientist) won a patent for a modified strain of bacteria. Before this, and rightly so, patent law was applied to inventions, not discoveries, and could not be applied at all to living things.

4 Responses to “Why the Patent System Inhibits Innovation Today”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    That was the biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. When my company invests 400K in research and development to find a new algorithm or way of improving business, why should my competitors be allowed to use it for free?

    The same goes for biotech – they invest billions! Why should the other companies get it for free? Who would be stupid enough to do the research if they couldnt protect it? 17 years is barely enough time to make the recoup on the money spent on drugs + failed drugs at the moment – if 17 years of revenue isnt enough, then how will being first to market help them?

    Arggh… people who dont know the ins and outs of the industry, budgets and costs associated with r&d in computer/biotech have no place in making comments.

  2. Achim Westermann Says:

    Your company wouldn’t have to invest 400K and lots of PT’s if it would and could use open source ;)

    BTW: Immature and sheepish if one does not stand with his name for what he is expressing.

  3. Dave Coleman Says:

    Response: Why the Patent System Inhibits Innovation Today

    [Posted in response to Dion Almaer]

    I don’t think the article “Why the Patent System Inh…

  4. Dave Coleman Says:

    Response: Why the Patent System Inhibits Innovation Today

    I don’t think the article “Why the Patent System …” is especially well thought out. I wonder how many enterprises/jobs/drugs etc would NOT have been created had it not been for the patents that have been granted. I imagine we might be ruled by the …

Leave a Reply

Spam is a pain, I am sorry to have to do this to you, but can you answer the question below?

Q: What are the first four letters in the word British?