It was recommended to me too, and not by Ron. :) I haven't read it yet, but I am interested to learn if someone has come up with a solution to the problem of having mass manufacturing corporations that just take any idea and build them. One could see an evil version of WalMart doing something like this, leaving the innovator/artist with no chance at revenue.
I read an article they had on that over at Mises.org and it's certainly an interesting issue. A compelling arguement can be made for both sides, but I'd tend to agree that the progress of technology is affected severely. Things get invented quiclky but they don't get brought to market because no other companies can afford to produce it.
As a person who supports intellectual property rights as they stand now, I would disagree in the strongest possible terms with your assertion, "Things get invented quickly but they don't get brought to market because no other companies can afford to produce it."
First, I currently have my first invention in front of the USPTO. The patent application was formally filed in February of 2009. My attorney said it takes 12 to 24 months for the USPTO to act on a patent. If that time frame is accurate then I should have an answer by February, 2011. Now as far as the time involved in bringing a product to market, perhaps that is the delay you are referring to. If that is the case, then consider what I would do (or not do) should the case against IPR become law. I would not bring that item to market at all and most certainly would not share the item with humanity.
Second, your assertion that items don't get brought to market because other companies can not afford to produce those items, that is the whole idea. Michele Boldrin, in her book "Against Intellectual Monopoly," make the statement "...and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high-prices to satisfy patent holders." That is a socialist statement. That is the very argument used by socialists to justify taking the property of others on the grounds there is a "need." "They can't afford it so you should give it to them for free." Consider who would invest the millions of dollars into R&D necessary to bring a new drug to market if they could not become fantastically wealthy by doing so.
This book was selected by participants (through popular vote) as June 2009's Book of the Month! I'm going to be reading it as soon as it arrives. Hopefully I can get both the authors to consent to have a recorded conversation with me.
It was recommended to me too, and not by Ron. :) I haven't read it yet, but I am interested to learn if someone has come up with a solution to the problem of having mass manufacturing corporations that just take any idea and build them. One could see an evil version of WalMart doing something like this, leaving the innovator/artist with no chance at revenue.
I read an article they had on that over at Mises.org and it's certainly an interesting issue. A compelling arguement can be made for both sides, but I'd tend to agree that the progress of technology is affected severely. Things get invented quiclky but they don't get brought to market because no other companies can afford to produce it.
Andrew,
As a person who supports intellectual property rights as they stand now, I would disagree in the strongest possible terms with your assertion, "Things get invented quickly but they don't get brought to market because no other companies can afford to produce it."
First, I currently have my first invention in front of the USPTO. The patent application was formally filed in February of 2009. My attorney said it takes 12 to 24 months for the USPTO to act on a patent. If that time frame is accurate then I should have an answer by February, 2011. Now as far as the time involved in bringing a product to market, perhaps that is the delay you are referring to. If that is the case, then consider what I would do (or not do) should the case against IPR become law. I would not bring that item to market at all and most certainly would not share the item with humanity.
Second, your assertion that items don't get brought to market because other companies can not afford to produce those items, that is the whole idea. Michele Boldrin, in her book "Against Intellectual Monopoly," make the statement "...and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high-prices to satisfy patent holders." That is a socialist statement. That is the very argument used by socialists to justify taking the property of others on the grounds there is a "need." "They can't afford it so you should give it to them for free." Consider who would invest the millions of dollars into R&D necessary to bring a new drug to market if they could not become fantastically wealthy by doing so.
-nv1z
Richard B. Kahn
This book was selected by participants (through popular vote) as June 2009's Book of the Month! I'm going to be reading it as soon as it arrives. Hopefully I can get both the authors to consent to have a recorded conversation with me.