«

On 8/10/10 10:03 AM, victor wrote:

> umbrellas bricks trousers forks paper beer vodka music etc

Thanks, unlike Larry you responded with some examples. Although, all of
those would have been developed prior to the concept of patents.

In message <i8k7nu$c5m$>, Another Me wrote:

> On 7/10/10 11:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Which of these was patentable, and which was not?
>
> I don't really care

But you were the one going on about the importance of “invention”, and about
whether it was right to “profit off others [sic] inventions”. And presumably
using patents to stop that.

So which was the more important “invention” (and presumably, the one more
worthy of patent “protection”): the fundamental discovery on which a whole
family of mechanisms was built, or those individual mechanisms?

> Can you give me some examples of innovation, or invention
> that people haven't patented, and has progressed to great commercial
> success?

The steam-engine.

When people are asked “who invented the steam-engine?”, the name that
usually comes to mind is “James Watt”. Only he didn’t. When we think “steam-
engine”, we think “engine powered by steam pressure”. But Watt’s engine
wasn’t like that at all; his engine was just a refinement of the Newcomen
engine from decades earlier, and it was just an “atmospheric engine”, which
meant that the steam came into the cylinder under low pressure and
condensed, and it was the resulting suction due to atmospheric pressure that
drove the piston.

Nevertheless, Watt got a patent on his engine, and he used that patent to
suppress any attempts to improve on his ideas. He was basically terrified of
high-pressure stream; it wasn’t until after his patent expired in 1800, that
Trevithick and the other Cornish mining engineers were able to develop the
modern steam-engine.

And they did so without patents; they freely shared ideas with each other
and built off each other’s innovations, which is why the steam-engine
progressed further in the subsequent 20 years than it had been able to over
the entire previous century.

On 8/10/10 12:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> But you were the one going on about the importance of “invention”, and about
> whether it was right to “profit off others [sic] inventions”. And presumably
> using patents to stop that.

No I wasn't, I question you regarding your statement, that is all.

> The steam-engine.

Can you provide a modern example, I will even let you go back 10-20
years. After all, I don't see that much development in steam engine
technology these days.

In message <i8lsem$b1r$>, Another Me wrote:

> On 8/10/10 12:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> But you were the one going on about the importance of “invention”, and
>> about whether it was right to “profit off others [sic] inventions”. And
>> presumably using patents to stop that.
>
> No I wasn't, I question you regarding your statement, that is all.

So you were not going about the importance of “invention”? Why did you bring
it up, then?

>> The steam-engine.
>
> Can you provide a modern example, I will even let you go back 10-20
> years. After all, I don't see that much development in steam engine
> technology these days.

So you think patents have only become important in the last 10-20 years?

In message <i8lded$2qd$>, Another Me wrote:

> On 8/10/10 10:03 AM, victor wrote:

>> On 7/10/2010 11:34 p.m., Another Me wrote:
>>
>>> Can you give me some examples of innovation, or invention that
>>> people haven't patented, and has progressed to great commercial success?
>
>> umbrellas bricks trousers forks paper beer vodka music etc
>
> Although, all of those would have been developed prior to the concept of
> patents.

Why is that relevant? Are you trying to say that patents have only become
important since they were introduced?

In message <i8j4eu$nt7$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> In message <i8j26j$mjc$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
> Just look at these diagrams
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit>,
> <http://www.infographicsfyi.com/who%E2%80%99s-suing-whom-in-the-telecoms-trade>.

Another beauty here
<http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/motorola-asks-itc-two-federal-courts-to-throw-book-at-apple.ars>

Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents are
essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?

On 8/10/10 3:03 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> So you were not going about the importance of “invention”? Why did you bring
> it up, then?


You brought it up

> So you think patents have only become important in the last 10-20 years?

Well you made the statement

"Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents
are essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?"

What was the point of making this statement if you are not talking about
now, rather than 300 years ago!?

In message <i8m47p$fda$>, Another Me wrote:

> On 8/10/10 3:03 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> So you were not going about the importance of “invention”? Why did you
>> bring it up, then?
>
> You brought it up

You were the one who seemed to attach importance to it. First you said
patents had something to do with “innovation”. Then when I corrected you, to
point out that they were only to do with “invention”, not “innovation”, you
said

Well in this case, and in the case of Nokia, both are suing due to their
inventions. So again, if this is true, is it ok for Apple to profit off
others inventions?

Then when I pointed out that “invention” was unimportant to innovation, you
kept going on about “invention”, as though you disagreed with me and thought
it was important.

So why did you keep doing this?

>> So you think patents have only become important in the last 10-20 years?
>
> Well you made the statement
>
> "Somebody please explain to me how this demonstrates that patents
> are essential to an innovative, vibrant economy, again?"
>
> What was the point of making this statement if you are not talking about
> now, rather than 300 years ago!?

Because patents have a history going back many centuries. And therefore
there is an accumulation of empirical data going back just as many
centuries, showing their relevance (or not) to the business of innovation.
And it just so happens that evidence is consistent, in that picking from one
period does not lead to contradictory conclusions compared to picking from
another.

It seems to me you’re trying to keep moving the goalposts here: you ask one
question, I answer that, then you try to retroactively redefine the
situation to somehow disqualify my reply. That’s a mug’s game, that you can
go play by yourself.

On 8/10/10 4:57 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> You were the one who seemed to attach importance to it. First you said
> patents had something to do with “innovation”. Then when I corrected you, to
> point out that they were only to do with “invention”, not “innovation”, you
> said

Well you seem ignorant to the fact, that without patents, a lot of
businesses wouldn't risk developing technologies in the first place.
You still haven't given me an example of a business venture that is
succeeding without patents involved.

If you are so sure of the evils of patents, provide some valid examples
of a life without patents instead hiding from the topic like you always do.

You haven't corrected me of anything, you just change what you say
constantly when someone finds holes in your topic.

On 8/10/10 3:04 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Why is that relevant?

Because you raised the topic of patents.