Should this worry Australia and New Zealand?

[Ronson]

Considering Star claims to be a scientist, I would think he would be all for intellectual property rights, like patents and copyrights. It's the only way scientists can protect their work product.

If not for patents and patent protection, my guess is the majority of miracle drugs that have been developed and save peoples' lives never would have existed.

[Starlight]

Considering Star claims to be a scientist, I would think he would be all for intellectual property rights, like patents and copyrights. It's the only way scientists can protect their work product.

So did that cause you to stop and think that maybe there was something you weren't understanding about the topic?

As a general rule, scientists don't get to own the patents for the stuff they invent. The company I work for is currently filing a patent for something I invented. Do I get to own it? Absolutely not. The company does. Like nearly all scientists, I work as a normal salaried employee. I get paid the same year-in and year-out regardless of whether I successfully invent something or not. The most I can look forward to is words of praise from my manager at my next performance review, and my manager has no power to give me pay rises significantly beyond what the company feels like dishing out to all employees that year.

During the meetings with the company's legal team and external legal advisors where they were discussing the pros and cons (for the company) of patenting my invention, the alternative they were considering was to make it a trade secret. That's where everyone involved is told to keep quiet about it, and the company uses the invention internally, but keeps information about it secret from competitors. That's actually a more common alternative to filing patents.

So no, like the vast majority of scientists, I don't benefit from intellectual property rights. Nearly all scientists are employed on salary contracts, so benefit very little from the success of their own research. If intellectual property rights didn't exist, private companies would just keep their discoveries secret, but they already mostly do anyway. Most scientific research is government funded anyway, for the public good, and so it doesn't benefit the government to try to keep tight protection on intellectual property discovered in this way.

The idea that scientists need intellectual property rights is based on a 19th century notion where an individual scientist is some sort of garage-based tinkerer who creates some marvelous invention and then needs to protect its intellectual property to secure an income stream. Such delusional thinking ignores some pretty serious issues, such as: What exactly was this scientist's income stream prior to their invention? Are the scientists doing this who fail to invent something supposed to then have no income stream? Nearly all scientists work in salaried roles for government institutions or private corporations (commonly the private research is government subsidized though) for this reason, because people need to be paid. And it ignores the fact that pretty much all the low-hanging fruit of garage-inventable things was taken long ago. To make any serious breakthroughs today typically requires multimillion dollar funding for resources, equipment, a team, etc.

[Starlight]

If not for patents and patent protection, my guess is the majority of miracle drugs that have been developed and save peoples' lives never would have existed.

About half seem to come from universities, which are government funded and don't rely on IP protections (though sometimes use them to make $$). The other half come from pharma companies whose research is usually government subsidized.

The big pharma model as it exists currently is basically a scam. The government pays for the R&D. Then the pharma company claims IP ownership of the discovery. Then they manufacture the drugs for about 1-2c each but sell the drugs for massive $$$, often to the very government who had paid for the research in the first place. Then they pocket the huge profits, and pay a few dollars to politicians to keep this scam going. Last time I looked, in the US, big pharma was the most profitable industry even above banks or oil and gas, and they were, coincidentally the biggest donors to politicians. Funny how that works.

The solution that I think the world should work towards is have governments commit to spending 1-2% of their budget on medical research, and make the discoveries IP-free. So once a life-saving medicine is discovered, it can be manufactured at cost - usually 1-2c per pill. This might actually cost governments less than the current model where they pay for the medicines twice - once to fund the R&D, and once again to buy the end product pills off the pharma companies who pocket the massive profits.

[Ronson]

About half seem to come from universities, which are government funded and don't rely on IP protections (though sometimes use them to make $$). The other half come from pharma companies whose research is usually government subsidized.

The big pharma model as it exists currently is basically a scam. The government pays for the R&D. Then the pharma company claims IP ownership of the discovery. Then they manufacture the drugs for about 1-2c each but sell the drugs for massive $$$, often to the very government who had paid for the research in the first place. Then they pocket the huge profits, and pay a few dollars to politicians to keep this scam going. Last time I looked, in the US, big pharma was the most profitable industry even above banks or oil and gas, and they were, coincidentally the biggest donors to politicians. Funny how that works.

The solution that I think the world should work towards is have governments commit to spending 1-2% of their budget on medical research, and make the discoveries IP-free. So once a life-saving medicine is discovered, it can be manufactured at cost - usually 1-2c per pill. This might actually cost governments less than the current model where they pay for the medicines twice - once to fund the R&D, and once again to buy the end product pills off the pharma companies who pocket the massive profits.

I am not saying the system has no faults. I don't understand why there are laws against price gouging in the US that don't seem to apply to Big Pharma companies (actually, I do understand, and it's called big lobbying).

[rogue06]

Source: Intellectual property law: a primer for scientists

Abstract

Intellectual property (IP) is a generic legal term for patents, copyrights, and trademarks, which provide legal rights to protect ideas, the expression of ideas, and the inventors and creators of such ideas. A patent provides legal protection for a new invention, an application of a new idea, discovery, or concept that is useful. Copyright provides legal protection from copying for any creative work, as well as business and scientific publications, computer software, and compilations of information. A trademark provides rights to use symbols, particular words, logos, or other markings that indicate the source of a product or service. A further method of benefiting from an invention is simply to keep it secret, rather than to disclose it a trade secret. IP impinges on almost everything scientists do. As scientists are paid to come up with ideas and aspire to patent and/or publish their work, the protection of ideas and of written works especially should be of interest and concern to all.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Just before the most recent fin de siècle I worked out of an old two bedroom house where one of the bedrooms was rented out as an office to just the sort of scientist star said doesn't exist any more. He had a slew of patents framed and hanging on his wall.

A REALLY strange guy, but that's a different story.

[Ronson]

Source: Intellectual property law: a primer for scientists

Abstract

Intellectual property (IP) is a generic legal term for patents, copyrights, and trademarks, which provide legal rights to protect ideas, the expression of ideas, and the inventors and creators of such ideas. A patent provides legal protection for a new invention, an application of a new idea, discovery, or concept that is useful. Copyright provides legal protection from copying for any creative work, as well as business and scientific publications, computer software, and compilations of information. A trademark provides rights to use symbols, particular words, logos, or other markings that indicate the source of a product or service. A further method of benefiting from an invention is simply to keep it secret, rather than to disclose it a trade secret. IP impinges on almost everything scientists do. As scientists are paid to come up with ideas and aspire to patent and/or publish their work, the protection of ideas and of written works especially should be of interest and concern to all.

Source

© Copyright Original Source

Just before the most recent fin de siècle I worked out of an old two bedroom house where one of the bedrooms was rented out as an office to just the sort of scientist star said doesn't exist any more. He had a slew of patents framed and hanging on his wall.

A REALLY strange guy, but that's a different story.

A friend of mine got a couple of patents. The only one I recall (back in the 1990s) was for an automatic check writer. It was a wallet-sized device. It saved in memory much of a person's usual checkwriting info and automatically added it to a check, to save the person time. One-off checks would only need the "pay to the order of" added.

He made the prototype. I laughed at it and thought it would never sell. It seemed outdated as I already started paying my bills online. Well, it turned out Sony (I believe) offered him $40K for it because they wanted to shelve it; apparently they thought it might interfere with another project they were developing. He turned them down. The device is collecting dust in his closet now.

[Sparko]

So did that cause you to stop and think that maybe there was something you weren't understanding about the topic?

As a general rule, scientists don't get to own the patents for the stuff they invent. The company I work for is currently filing a patent for something I invented. Do I get to own it? Absolutely not. The company does. Like nearly all scientists, I work as a normal salaried employee. I get paid the same year-in and year-out regardless of whether I successfully invent something or not. The most I can look forward to is words of praise from my manager at my next performance review, and my manager has no power to give me pay rises significantly beyond what the company feels like dishing out to all employees that year.

then that is all on you Star. If you don't have a contract where you at least get a percentage of the profits from a patent, that is your own problem. And just because YOU work for a company and give away your intellectual property to them doesn't mean that IP is useless. 1. Without owning that IP, your company couldn't stay in business and you wouldn't have a job. 2. You always could work on your own patents on your own time, unless you signed away that right too.

The idea that scientists need intellectual property rights is based on a 19th century notion where an individual scientist is some sort of garage-based tinkerer who creates some marvelous invention and then needs to protect its intellectual property to secure an income stream. Such delusional thinking ignores some pretty serious issues, such as: What exactly was this scientist's income stream prior to their invention? Are the scientists doing this who fail to invent something supposed to then have no income stream? Nearly all scientists work in salaried roles for government institutions or private corporations (commonly the private research is government subsidized though) for this reason, because people need to be paid. And it ignores the fact that pretty much all the low-hanging fruit of garage-inventable things was taken long ago. To make any serious breakthroughs today typically requires multimillion dollar funding for resources, equipment, a team, etc.

You really are clueless aren't you? Of course there are individual inventors out there patenting things themselves. When I started in my first job I worked for a fellow who patented several cleaning processes and refrigeration designs and started his own cleaning company. He alone had like 15 patents. And guess what? He actually did start his company in a garage! He built his patents into one of the largest cleaning machine companies in the world, then sold it and retired. His machines were used for cleaning and soldering surface mount electronics boards and even rocket engine parts. He sold machines to NeXt, NASA, Lockheed Martin, the DoD, Apple, and many fortune 500 companies.

I work at a law firm where we file patents for individuals all the time. Engineers, Scientists, Inventors, all benefit from Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks.

[Starlight]

then that is all on you Star. If you don't have a contract where you at least get a percentage of the profits from a patent, that is your own problem.

It's the typical state of affairs for scientists worldwide, because a salaried income stream is far preferable to the lack of income as one works towards possible future patents.

1. Without owning that IP, your company couldn't stay in business and you wouldn't have a job.

100% false. My company does not rely on IP to stay in business, and their primary purpose of employing scientists is not to generate IP. The same is true of most scientific organizations, e.g. universities, NASA, NIH etc. that employ large amounts of scientists.

2. You always could work on your own patents on your own time

Sure. My high level of contempt for patents combined with my estimation that there would be a near-zero probability of me coming up with something patentable without being supplied with several million dollars in resources to fund the research, means I'm not going to invest any time into this goal.

Of course there are individual inventors out there patenting things themselves. When I started in my first job I worked for a fellow who patented several cleaning processes and refrigeration designs and started his own cleaning company. He alone had like 15 patents. And guess what? He actually did start his company in a garage! He built his patents into one of the largest cleaning machine companies in the world, then sold it and retired. His machines were used for cleaning and soldering surface mount electronics boards and even rocket engine parts. He sold machines to NeXt, NASA, Lockheed Martin, the DoD, Apple, and many fortune 500 companies.

The one person who wins the lottery isn't proof that the lottery is worth entering for the vast majority of people. Nor is it proof that the existence of the lottery is of net benefit to society. For every guy that 'makes it' in this way, there will be a thousand guys who patent something that's never bought by anyone, and ten thousand guys who spend all their money and time trying to invent something worth patenting and fail. A system that rewards success only after it happens, and only sometimes (when a buyer is successfully found), is a badly flawed system because people need incomes during all the time they were working toward the discoveries, not just after they make and sell them.

I work at a law firm where we file patents for individuals all the time.

That would explain a lot... reading the application the lawyers had written for my own patent I could feel my brain bleeding out my ears by the time I was on page 2 of 16. Pretty sure patents actively lower the IQ of anyone reading them. The people who write them must be very... special... individuals.

[rogue06]

It's the typical state of affairs for scientists worldwide, because a salaried income stream is far preferable to the lack of income as one works towards possible future patents.

So you choose to trade the potential to make a lot of money for security. You have nothing to complain about then. As Sparko said, it's all on you.

[Sparko]

It's the typical state of affairs for scientists worldwide, because a salaried income stream is far preferable to the lack of income as one works towards possible future patents.

100% false. My company does not rely on IP to stay in business, and their primary purpose of employing scientists is not to generate IP. The same is true of most scientific organizations, e.g. universities, NASA, NIH etc. that employ large amounts of scientists.

Sure. My high level of contempt for patents combined with my estimation that there would be a near-zero probability of me coming up with something patentable without being supplied with several million dollars in resources to fund the research, means I'm not going to invest any time into this goal.

so your company doesn't make profits off of their intellectual property? Go on, pull the other one. They might not directly monetize an IP but they rely on having that IP to prevent competitors from stealing their ideas and products. They use those IPs to develop processes and products that they sell for profit. Which is how they can afford to hire scientists like you.

The one person who wins the lottery isn't proof that the lottery is worth entering for the vast majority of people. Nor is it proof that the existence of the lottery is of net benefit to society. For every guy that 'makes it' in this way, there will be a thousand guys who patent something that's never bought by anyone, and ten thousand guys who spend all their money and time trying to invent something worth patenting and fail. A system that rewards success only after it happens, and only sometimes (when a buyer is successfully found), is a badly flawed system because people need incomes during all the time they were working toward the discoveries, not just after they make and sell them.

That would explain a lot... reading the application the lawyers had written for my own patent I could feel my brain bleeding out my ears by the time I was on page 2 of 16. Pretty sure patents actively lower the IQ of anyone reading them. The people who write them must be very... special... individuals.

I know dozens of inventors who have their own patents. And not just from my current job. I also used to work in marketing where I created logos, brochures and websites for various entrepreneurs who almost always had some patent on whatever invention they were selling. Heck, just watch "Shark Tank" or "Dragon's Den" on TV to see a parade of people with patents and trademarks they own themselves. Small business in the USA relies on IPs, as well as large corporations.

[Starlight]

So you choose to trade the potential to make a lot of money for security. You have nothing to complain about then. As Sparko said, it's all on you.

You're missing the point. Is there a theoretical possible world in which I could make some money from the current patent system as a result of choices and discoveries I made? Sure.

But that misses the questions I was addressing of whether having patents is a good system, worth it for our society, or fundamentally necessary for scientists in general. If we reinstituted slavery I could potentially make money off that, but that wouldn't make it a good system to have.

The vast majority of scientists do no use IP protections, and for them the current IP system does not inspire scientific work that wouldn't otherwise have occurred, and I have seen patents block discoveries and their use as least as often if not more than I've seen them lead to them.