Seagate vs the SSD makers

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 17, 2008.

  1. Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over patent
    infringement. There's no question it's doing this to shore up its
    hard-drive business: the question is, is it right or wrong? A patent is a
    grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly, it allows you to restrict the
    competition. If you can do so, why not?

    <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 17, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Apr 17, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over patent
    > infringement. There's no question it's doing this to shore up its
    > hard-drive business: the question is, is it right or wrong? A patent is a
    > grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly, it allows you to restrict the
    > competition. If you can do so, why not?
    >
    > <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>


    Of course. However if they are unsuccessful and their suit is found to
    be vexatious then they should be heavily punished.

    Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.
     
    JohnO, Apr 17, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    peterwn Guest

    On Apr 17, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over patent
    > infringement. There's no question it's doing this to shore up its
    > hard-drive business: the question is, is it right or wrong? A patent is a
    > grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly, it allows you to restrict the
    > competition. If you can do so, why not?
    >
    > <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>


    The patents apply to the interfacing protocols (IDE and SATA) but the
    NYT article gives no clue as to precisely what is being infringed,
    quite apart from whether the patents can be challenged (eg they may
    apply to interfaces pertaining to mechanical drives only).

    In any event the suit would apply to solid state memory that 'drops
    into' a hard disk application. In the longer term a more elegant
    solution that bypasses the patents (if they are valid and applicable)
    would be developed and the patent suit would merely serve to hasten
    his. For example it could be installed on the motherboard and
    connected in a similar manner to RAM. If it reads a quickly as RAM,
    there would seem to be no reason why installed software cannot run
    straight off this memory rather than take a copy as at present.
     
    peterwn, Apr 17, 2008
    #3
  4. In article
    <>, JohnO
    did write:

    > On Apr 17, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over patent
    >> infringement. There's no question it's doing this to shore up its
    >> hard-drive business: the question is, is it right or wrong? A patent is a
    >> grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly, it allows you to restrict the
    >> competition. If you can do so, why not?
    >>
    >> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>

    >
    > Of course. However if they are unsuccessful and their suit is found to
    > be vexatious then they should be heavily punished.


    Funny you should say that. Forgent was able to amass quite a tidy sum
    <http://techdirt.com/articles/20061101/152245.shtml> from its alleged JPEG
    patent. Even after the patent was called into question, nobody seemed to be
    calling for it to give that money back. Would you describe them
    as "vexatious"?

    > Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.


    Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 17, 2008
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>, JohnO
    > did write:
    >
    > > On Apr 17, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >
    > >> Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over patent
    > >> infringement. There's no question it's doing this to shore up its
    > >> hard-drive business: the question is, is it right or wrong? A patent is a
    > >> grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly, it allows you to restrict the
    > >> competition. If you can do so, why not?

    >
    > >> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>

    >
    > > Of course. However if they are unsuccessful and their suit is found to
    > > be vexatious then they should be heavily punished.

    >
    > Funny you should say that. Forgent was able to amass quite a tidy sum
    > <http://techdirt.com/articles/20061101/152245.shtml> from its alleged JPEG
    > patent. Even after the patent was called into question, nobody seemed to be
    > calling for it to give that money back. Would you describe them
    > as "vexatious"?
    >
    > > Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.

    >
    > Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.


    I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    understand the concept of investment for a return?
     
    JohnO, Apr 17, 2008
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "JohnO" typed:
    > On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <>,
    >> JohnO did write:
    >>
    >>> On Apr 17, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over patent
    >>>> infringement. There's no question it's doing this to shore up its
    >>>> hard-drive business: the question is, is it right or wrong? A
    >>>> patent is a grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly, it allows you
    >>>> to restrict the competition. If you can do so, why not?

    >>
    >>>> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>

    >>
    >>> Of course. However if they are unsuccessful and their suit is found
    >>> to be vexatious then they should be heavily punished.

    >>
    >> Funny you should say that. Forgent was able to amass quite a tidy sum
    >> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20061101/152245.shtml> from its
    >> alleged JPEG patent. Even after the patent was called into question,
    >> nobody seemed to be calling for it to give that money back. Would
    >> you describe them
    >> as "vexatious"?
    >>
    >>> Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.

    >>
    >> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.

    >
    > I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    > think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    > understand the concept of investment for a return?


    I wish you hadn't used "drug companies" as an analogy. I've just read a book
    about how the multi-national phamacuetical companies spend more on spin than
    they do on (R&D) developing drugs that actually work. In fact they pay
    multi-million dollar 'retainers' to high-profile psychologists and fund
    conferences in exotic locations....... The book took a couple examples of
    drugs that in fact don't do anything beneficial, quite the contrary, but are
    commonly prescribed world-wide as they were lauded by these shills in the US
    and the world tends to take the lead of the US when it comes to drugs.

    Heh! Sorry, I'm still disgusted by what I read. ("Toxic Psychiatry" by Peter
    Breggin MD)

    Cheers,
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Apr 18, 2008
    #6
  7. In article
    <>, JohnO
    did write:

    > On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In article
    >> <>,
    >> JohnO did write:
    >>
    >> > Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.

    >>
    >> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.

    >
    > I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    > think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    > understand the concept of investment for a return?


    Funny you should mention the drug companies, since they're about the worst
    possible example of capitalism in action: while diseases like TB and
    cholera kill millions of people each year, they can't be bothered
    developing drugs for those, simply because the sufferers typically can't
    afford to pay enough. While drugs like Viagra are worth billions, even
    though nobody ever died from a limp dick.

    You want to try for a better example?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 18, 2008
    #7
  8. In article <>, Allistar did
    write:

    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In article
    >> <>, JohnO
    >> did write:
    >>
    >>> On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In article
    >>>> <>,
    >>>> JohnO did write:
    >>>>
    >>>> > Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.
    >>>>
    >>>> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.
    >>>
    >>> I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    >>> think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    >>> understand the concept of investment for a return?

    >>
    >> Funny you should mention the drug companies, since they're about the
    >> worst possible example of capitalism in action: while diseases like TB
    >> and cholera kill millions of people each year, they can't be bothered
    >> developing drugs for those, simply because the sufferers typically can't
    >> afford to pay enough. While drugs like Viagra are worth billions, even
    >> though nobody ever died from a limp dick.

    >
    > Who should pay for the R&D into developing cures and/or remedies for those
    > diseases?


    Certainly the patent system as it stands isn't doing it.

    > If it weren't for this aspect of capitalism there wouldn't be any where
    > near the sort of investment we see today into improving our species using
    > science and medical technology.


    Evidence to the contrary is mounting.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 18, 2008
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Apr 18, 12:36 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    > Somewhere on teh intarweb "JohnO" typed:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > >> In article
    > >> <>,
    > >> JohnO did write:

    >
    > >>> On Apr 17, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > >>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >
    > >>>> Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over patent
    > >>>> infringement. There's no question it's doing this to shore up its
    > >>>> hard-drive business: the question is, is it right or wrong? A
    > >>>> patent is a grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly, it allows you
    > >>>> to restrict the competition. If you can do so, why not?

    >
    > >>>> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>

    >
    > >>> Of course. However if they are unsuccessful and their suit is found
    > >>> to be vexatious then they should be heavily punished.

    >
    > >> Funny you should say that. Forgent was able to amass quite a tidy sum
    > >> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20061101/152245.shtml> from its
    > >> alleged JPEG patent. Even after the patent was called into question,
    > >> nobody seemed to be calling for it to give that money back. Would
    > >> you describe them
    > >> as "vexatious"?

    >
    > >>> Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.

    >
    > >> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.

    >
    > > I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    > > think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    > > understand the concept of investment for a return?

    >
    > I wish you hadn't used "drug companies" as an analogy. I've just read a book
    > about how the multi-national phamacuetical companies spend more on spin than
    > they do on (R&D) developing drugs that actually work. In fact they pay
    > multi-million dollar 'retainers' to high-profile psychologists and fund
    > conferences in exotic locations....... The book took a couple examples of
    > drugs that in fact don't do anything beneficial, quite the contrary, but are
    > commonly prescribed world-wide as they were lauded by these shills in the US
    > and the world tends to take the lead of the US when it comes to drugs.
    >
    > Heh! Sorry, I'm still disgusted by what I read. ("Toxic Psychiatry" by Peter
    > Breggin MD)
    >
    > Cheers,
    > --
    > Shaun.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Well that could be true for all I know. However they do spend billions
    on R&D and they wouldn't if they had to give away the IP.
     
    JohnO, Apr 20, 2008
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Apr 18, 12:42 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>, JohnO
    > did write:
    >
    > > On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >
    > >> In article
    > >> <>,
    > >> JohnO did write:

    >
    > >> > Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.

    >
    > >> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.

    >
    > > I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    > > think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    > > understand the concept of investment for a return?

    >
    > Funny you should mention the drug companies, since they're about the worst
    > possible example of capitalism in action: while diseases like TB and
    > cholera kill millions of people each year, they can't be bothered
    > developing drugs for those, simply because the sufferers typically can't
    > afford to pay enough. While drugs like Viagra are worth billions, even
    > though nobody ever died from a limp dick.
    >
    > You want to try for a better example?


    No need. The drug companies are their own entity and free to do
    whatever the hell they and their shareholders please.

    No getting back to the original point: If IP was not protected,
    investors would not put money into drug companies.. Can you explain
    where the R&D money will come from if the investors didn't kick it in?
     
    JohnO, Apr 20, 2008
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Apr 18, 7:55 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In article <>, Allistar did
    > write:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    >
    > >> In article
    > >> <>, JohnO
    > >> did write:

    >
    > >>> On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > >>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >
    > >>>> In article
    > >>>> <>,
    > >>>> JohnO did write:

    >
    > >>>> > Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.

    >
    > >>>> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.

    >
    > >>> I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    > >>> think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    > >>> understand the concept of investment for a return?

    >
    > >> Funny you should mention the drug companies, since they're about the
    > >> worst possible example of capitalism in action: while diseases like TB
    > >> and cholera kill millions of people each year, they can't be bothered
    > >> developing drugs for those, simply because the sufferers typically can't
    > >> afford to pay enough. While drugs like Viagra are worth billions, even
    > >> though nobody ever died from a limp dick.

    >
    > > Who should pay for the R&D into developing cures and/or remedies for those
    > > diseases?

    >
    > Certainly the patent system as it stands isn't doing it.
    >
    > > If it weren't for this aspect of capitalism there wouldn't be any where
    > > near the sort of investment we see today into improving our species using
    > > science and medical technology.

    >
    > Evidence to the contrary is mounting.- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    Youve said that twice but have yet to offer any.
     
    JohnO, Apr 20, 2008
    #11
  12. In article
    <>, JohnO
    did write:

    > On Apr 18, 12:42 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> In article
    >> <>, JohnO
    >> did write:
    >>
    >> > On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> In article
    >> >> <>,
    >> >> JohnO did write:

    >>
    >> >> > Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.

    >>
    >> >> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.

    >>
    >> > I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    >> > think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    >> > understand the concept of investment for a return?

    >>
    >> Funny you should mention the drug companies, since they're about the
    >> worst possible example of capitalism in action: while diseases like TB
    >> and cholera kill millions of people each year, they can't be bothered
    >> developing drugs for those, simply because the sufferers typically can't
    >> afford to pay enough. While drugs like Viagra are worth billions, even
    >> though nobody ever died from a limp dick.
    >>
    >> You want to try for a better example?

    >
    > No need. The drug companies are their own entity and free to do
    > whatever the hell they and their shareholders please.


    Which is not saying why they're such a good example.

    > No getting back to the original point: If IP was not protected,
    > investors would not put money into drug companies..


    Why would that be a bad thing?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 23, 2008
    #12
  13. In article
    <>, JohnO
    did write:

    > However they do spend billions on R&D and they wouldn't if they had to
    > give away the IP.


    Is spending billions necessarily a good thing? Would it really cost that
    much to develop e.g. good drugs for TB or malaria? Look at how many lives
    of cholera sufferers were saved by the simple addition of a sugar-salt
    mixture to the water they were given to drink--a mixture so simple it
    couldn't be patented.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 23, 2008
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Apr 23, 11:56 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>, JohnO
    > did write:
    >
    > > However they do spend billions on R&D and they wouldn't if they had to
    > > give away the IP.

    >
    > Is spending billions necessarily a good thing? Would it really cost that
    > much to develop e.g. good drugs for TB or malaria? Look at how many lives
    > of cholera sufferers were saved by the simple addition of a sugar-salt
    > mixture to the water they were given to drink--a mixture so simple it
    > couldn't be patented.


    That's not a drug, it's a water treatment. Most cures are not so
    easy.

    One of the main reasons it costs so much to get a drug to market is
    the FDA approval process. I have a customer that manufactures
    orthopaedic implants. As a matter of commercial and regulatory
    necessity, they must FDA approve their products, regardless of the
    market the are going to see them into. The compliance cost is
    incredible. It can take them 10 years of development and testing to
    get their products on sale. There is nothing they can do about this.
    Obviously they would not spend all this time and money if every Tom
    Dick and Harry could then just copy their design and undercut them.

    Basically all the wonder drugs that are now available have been
    through this development and cost model.
     
    JohnO, Apr 23, 2008
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Apr 23, 11:53 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>, JohnO
    > did write:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Apr 18, 12:42 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > >> In article
    > >> <>, JohnO
    > >> did write:

    >
    > >> > On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > >> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> In article
    > >> >> <>,
    > >> >> JohnO did write:

    >
    > >> >> > Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.

    >
    > >> >> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.

    >
    > >> > I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    > >> > think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    > >> > understand the concept of investment for a return?

    >
    > >> Funny you should mention the drug companies, since they're about the
    > >> worst possible example of capitalism in action: while diseases like TB
    > >> and cholera kill millions of people each year, they can't be bothered
    > >> developing drugs for those, simply because the sufferers typically can't
    > >> afford to pay enough. While drugs like Viagra are worth billions, even
    > >> though nobody ever died from a limp dick.

    >
    > >> You want to try for a better example?

    >
    > > No need. The drug companies are their own entity and free to do
    > > whatever the hell they and their shareholders please.

    >
    > Which is not saying why they're such a good example.
    >
    > > No getting back to the original point: If IP was not protected,
    > > investors would not put money into drug companies..

    >
    > Why would that be a bad thing?


    If your life depended on a modern drug I dare say it would be. In your
    world, HIV would still be a mandatory death sentence. As would many
    kinds of heart disease, chemo treatable cancers, penicillin resistant
    bacterial infections - and countless other ailments.
     
    JohnO, Apr 23, 2008
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    JohnO Guest

    On Apr 23, 5:12 pm, sam <> wrote:
    > JohnO wrote:
    > > On Apr 18, 12:36 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    > >> Somewhere on teh intarweb "JohnO" typed:

    >
    > >>> On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > >>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > >>>> In article
    > >>>> <>,
    > >>>> JohnO did write:
    > >>>>> On Apr 17, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > >>>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > >>>>>> Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over patent
    > >>>>>> infringement. There's no question it's doing this to shore up its
    > >>>>>> hard-drive business: the question is, is it right or wrong? A
    > >>>>>> patent is a grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly, it allows you
    > >>>>>> to restrict the competition. If you can do so, why not?
    > >>>>>> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>
    > >>>>> Of course. However if they are unsuccessful and their suit is found
    > >>>>> to be vexatious then they should be heavily punished.
    > >>>> Funny you should say that. Forgent was able to amass quite a tidy sum
    > >>>> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20061101/152245.shtml> from its
    > >>>> alleged JPEG patent. Even after the patent was called into question,
    > >>>> nobody seemed to be calling for it to give that money back. Would
    > >>>> you describe them
    > >>>> as "vexatious"?
    > >>>>> Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.
    > >>>> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.
    > >>> I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    > >>> think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    > >>> understand the concept of investment for a return?
    > >> I wish you hadn't used "drug companies" as an analogy. I've just read a book
    > >> about how the multi-national phamacuetical companies spend more on spin than
    > >> they do on (R&D) developing drugs that actually work. In fact they pay
    > >> multi-million dollar 'retainers' to high-profile psychologists and fund
    > >> conferences in exotic locations....... The book took a couple examples of
    > >> drugs that in fact don't do anything beneficial, quite the contrary, but are
    > >> commonly prescribed world-wide as they were lauded by these shills in the US
    > >> and the world tends to take the lead of the US when it comes to drugs.

    >
    > >> Heh! Sorry, I'm still disgusted by what I read. ("Toxic Psychiatry" by Peter
    > >> Breggin MD)

    >
    > >> Cheers,
    > >> --
    > >> Shaun.- Hide quoted text -

    >
    > >> - Show quoted text -

    >
    > > Well that could be true for all I know. However they do spend billions
    > > on R&D and they wouldn't if they had to give away the IP.

    >
    > This year Merck spent 13% of its revenue on marketing and 5% on R & D.
    > Pfizer spent 35% of its revenue on marketing and 15% on R & D. The
    > industry as a whole spent 27% on marketing and 11% on R & D.


    So? They have a requirement to stay in business don't they?

    > They spend money trading patents and buying patent holders, not on R&D.


    But you just said they spend 5-15% on R&D. Make up your mind! Buying
    patent holders funds R&D.
     
    JohnO, Apr 23, 2008
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Toxic Psychiatry. Was: Re: Seagate vs the SSD makers

    Somewhere on teh intarweb "JohnO" typed:
    > On Apr 23, 5:12 pm, sam <> wrote:
    >> JohnO wrote:
    >>> On Apr 18, 12:36 pm, "~misfit~" <> wrote:
    >>>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "JohnO" typed:

    >>
    >>>>> On Apr 17, 9:35 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >>>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>>> In article
    >>>>>> <>,
    >>>>>> JohnO did write:
    >>>>>>> On Apr 17, 12:14 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    >>>>>>> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Seagate is starting to sue makers of solid-state drives over
    >>>>>>>> patent infringement. There's no question it's doing this to
    >>>>>>>> shore up its hard-drive business: the question is, is it right
    >>>>>>>> or wrong? A patent is a grant of a monopoly; being a monopoly,
    >>>>>>>> it allows you to restrict the competition. If you can do so,
    >>>>>>>> why not?
    >>>>>>>> <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080415/010555848.shtml>
    >>>>>>> Of course. However if they are unsuccessful and their suit is
    >>>>>>> found to be vexatious then they should be heavily punished.
    >>>>>> Funny you should say that. Forgent was able to amass quite a
    >>>>>> tidy sum <http://techdirt.com/articles/20061101/152245.shtml>
    >>>>>> from its alleged JPEG patent. Even after the patent was called
    >>>>>> into question, nobody seemed to be calling for it to give that
    >>>>>> money back. Would you describe them
    >>>>>> as "vexatious"?
    >>>>>>> Without protection of IP much commercial R&D would cease.
    >>>>>> Evidence to the contrary seems to be mounting.
    >>>>> I doubt it. If the drug companies couldn't protect their IP do you
    >>>>> think they'd risk the billions they spent on R&D? Do you even
    >>>>> understand the concept of investment for a return?
    >>>> I wish you hadn't used "drug companies" as an analogy. I've just
    >>>> read a book about how the multi-national phamacuetical companies
    >>>> spend more on spin than they do on (R&D) developing drugs that
    >>>> actually work. In fact they pay multi-million dollar 'retainers'
    >>>> to high-profile psychologists and fund conferences in exotic
    >>>> locations....... The book took a couple examples of drugs that in
    >>>> fact don't do anything beneficial, quite the contrary, but are
    >>>> commonly prescribed world-wide as they were lauded by these shills
    >>>> in the US and the world tends to take the lead of the US when it
    >>>> comes to drugs.

    >>
    >>>> Heh! Sorry, I'm still disgusted by what I read. ("Toxic
    >>>> Psychiatry" by Peter Breggin MD)

    >>
    >>>> Cheers,
    >>>> --
    >>>> Shaun.- Hide quoted text -

    >>
    >>>> - Show quoted text -

    >>
    >>> Well that could be true for all I know. However they do spend
    >>> billions on R&D and they wouldn't if they had to give away the IP.

    >>
    >> This year Merck spent 13% of its revenue on marketing and 5% on R &
    >> D. Pfizer spent 35% of its revenue on marketing and 15% on R & D. The
    >> industry as a whole spent 27% on marketing and 11% on R & D.

    >
    > So? They have a requirement to stay in business don't they?
    >
    >> They spend money trading patents and buying patent holders, not on
    >> R&D.

    >
    > But you just said they spend 5-15% on R&D. Make up your mind! Buying
    > patent holders funds R&D.


    Seriously, if your local library has "Toxic Psychiatry" by Peter Breggin MD
    I strongly suggest you read it. Especilayy if a family member or friend (or
    even yourself) is taking psychiatric drugs. (I am). It's a real eye-opener.

    Basically it comes down to; Society doesn't want to be bothered dealing with
    people who are 'disturbed', even though most of them can be 'fixed' my a
    good listener with a knowledge of the human mind. There seems to be an inate
    revulsion that comes into play. 200 years ago they were locked up to die.
    100 years ago they were lobotomised (some for what was probably merely a
    passing depressive episode), 50 years ago they were perma-fried with
    Electro-Convulsive Therapy. Now we put them in chemical prisons. Very, very
    few are lucky enough to get actual treatment which is a tragedy when maybe
    80%+ could be 'cured' by a caring talk-doctor.

    Case in point, my flatemate suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and
    attendant Depression due to childhood abuse (and is a real handful to take
    care of, I'm her designated 'carer', unpaid of course). Last week she had a
    change of psychiatrists. The new doctor spent the session asking what meds
    she was on and did she feel she needed the dosages adjusting. Her unopened
    file was in front of him and it was only when she mentioned things that he
    cracked it to check. I dare say he'll be the same next month (!!!!!).
    Meanwhile she can't funcion unaided in society.

    Not once did he ask what was wrong with her or if he could help (other than
    by poisoning her).

    Be lucky, don't develop a mental upset (I'm loathe to call it a disease) in
    New Zealand. Here the government spends millions on TV advertisments telling
    people it's alright to be mentally 'abnormal' and promotes "Caring in the
    Community" (IOW if the 'patient' has somewhere to live, they don't get
    admitted to hospital, even if they really, really should be*). Compared with
    the advertising budget, they spend peanuts on doctors. All the good mental
    health professionals went either into private practice (but not many, most
    medical insurance doesn't cover psychiatric 'disorders') or went to other
    countries.

    The last time I saw a psychiatrist for Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to help
    deal with my anxiety without drugging myself into oblivion when I feel a
    panic attack coming on he didn't speak English well enough for me to
    understand him, I had to get him to repeat most things, some more than once.
    Needless to say I didn't go to a second session and am still taking the
    meds. I'm just taking less and trying to train myself to recognise the
    precursors and change responses. However, without being big-headed, there
    are a lot of patients out there a lot less intelligent or strong-willed than
    I who would be unable to take this course of action. They are more in need
    of someone who speaks English to guide them through this difficult process.

    In Australia, if you have a breakdown (told to me last year by someone who
    had one while on holiday, then came back to NZ) you get cared for properly
    and actually helped instead of drugged. When I talked to her she was in the
    process of selling up and moving her husband and child there. She was mostly
    'well' by then (or as well as any of us ever is) but disgusted with the NZ
    mental health 'service' she'd recieved since she got back and felt she could
    no longer live here with any feeling of security.

    New Zealand has really bought the phamaceutical companies bullshit hook,
    line, sinker, rod, reel and boat. Or maybe they've just done the math and
    decided that it's cheaper to write these people off. If the latter then
    they're being very short-sighted. (Maybe a side-effect of democracy and
    having to 'please' the majority in order to try to get re-elected?)

    (*) I've been advised (by the police) that the only way to get my flatmate
    the care she needs is to throw her out, call them and thell them she's
    suicidal and take a trespass order out agaist her. Then she'll spend a night
    in the cells, then get shipped off to a facility. However, to do that would
    be to send her the message that the last person in the world who wanted her
    to get better no longer cares and I'm not prepared to do that (yet?) no
    matter the cost to my own sanity looking after an unstable person.

    Sorry for the major digression, this thread touched a nerve. Please resume
    regular programming. <g>

    <whew!>
    --
    Shaun.
     
    ~misfit~, Apr 23, 2008
    #17
  18. In article
    <>, JohnO
    did write:

    > On Apr 23, 11:53 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >>
    >> In article
    >> <>,
    >> JohnO did write:
    >>
    >> > No getting back to the original point: If IP was not protected,
    >> > investors would not put money into drug companies..

    >>
    >> Why would that be a bad thing?

    >
    > If your life depended on a modern drug I dare say it would be. In your
    > world, HIV would still be a mandatory death sentence.


    In the real world, HIV IS a mandatory death sentence for most of its
    sufferers. They can't get the drugs.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 24, 2008
    #18
  19. In article
    <>, JohnO
    did write:

    > On Apr 23, 5:12 pm, sam <> wrote:
    >
    >> JohnO wrote:

    >
    >> > Well that could be true for all I know. However they do spend billions
    >> > on R&D and they wouldn't if they had to give away the IP.

    >>
    >> This year Merck spent 13% of its revenue on marketing and 5% on R & D.
    >> Pfizer spent 35% of its revenue on marketing and 15% on R & D. The
    >> industry as a whole spent 27% on marketing and 11% on R & D.

    >
    > So? They have a requirement to stay in business don't they?


    Which is the whole point, isn't it--is this a good thing or not?
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 24, 2008
    #19
  20. In article
    <>, JohnO
    did write:

    > On Apr 23, 11:56 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >
    >> In article
    >> <>, JohnO
    >> did write:
    >>
    >> > However they do spend billions on R&D and they wouldn't if they had to
    >> > give away the IP.

    >>
    >> Is spending billions necessarily a good thing? Would it really cost that
    >> much to develop e.g. good drugs for TB or malaria? Look at how many lives
    >> of cholera sufferers were saved by the simple addition of a sugar-salt
    >> mixture to the water they were given to drink--a mixture so simple it
    >> couldn't be patented.

    >
    > That's not a drug, it's a water treatment. Most cures are not so
    > easy.


    Maybe they are, it's just there's no money in researching treatments that
    can't be patented. Look at the slow, but steady, stream of discoveries
    about aspirin, for example. Why slow? Because the patent had expired, so
    there was no profit in continuing to research its benefits.

    > One of the main reasons it costs so much to get a drug to market is
    > the FDA approval process. I have a customer that manufactures
    > orthopaedic implants. As a matter of commercial and regulatory
    > necessity, they must FDA approve their products, regardless of the
    > market the are going to see them into. The compliance cost is
    > incredible.


    Is this a desirable situation?

    > Basically all the wonder drugs that are now available have been
    > through this development and cost model.


    Not quite. Things were a bit simpler, particularly in pre-thalidomide days.
    I've heard it said that if penicillin were discovered now, it would not be
    approved, because it kills guinea-pigs.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Apr 24, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Slarty Bartfast

    Prison for Virus makers

    Slarty Bartfast, Sep 10, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    573
    Mitch S.
    Sep 10, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    412
  3. FTLOSM

    generic vs brand name lens makers

    FTLOSM, Nov 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    656
    Samuel Paik
    Nov 21, 2003
  4. Becky

    Intel SSD 910 PCI Express SSD Performance

    Becky, May 4, 2012, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,157
    Becky
    May 4, 2012
  5. Becky

    Seagate 600 Pro 200GB Enterprise SSD

    Becky, Jan 3, 2014, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    439
    Becky
    Jan 3, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page