JeanPaul

Why should I associate with entrepreneurs? I like it just like that. Besides, I am already a small entrepreneur. Any good system should be such that a guy alike can choose to work on his own or not, you see what I mean. Switching for a system where I would lose some or all my liberty is not an improvement, as far as I am concerned. I am not concerned about innovating over a long period of time. This is what I have been doing since I was 20. I was able to make a living out of it. "Would there even be isolated inventors in the absence of patents?" A system where the small independent inventors (there are a lot) would disappear would be sad, I personally think. "As an inventor, the motivation may persist, since patents may just be replaced with whatever peaceful method the free market comes up with." I do not want to sound rude, but this is wishful thinking to me, since you are all miles away from finding a better alternative. The little guys did not have to wait for a very long time before the patent was over I bet. The problem I see is that patent examiners are not very good. It is their job not to grant crazy patents. "Software" patents are indeed no different.

The initiators are the statists of course. Killing them is mereley self-defense.

There is no reason to assume that inventive people should also be successful entrepreneurs. You present the disadvantages of patents, but you forget the advantages. Patents motivate inventors, at least they motivate me. No one can invent new things, great things year after year. One gets only a few good inventions in a lifetime, except for great inventors like Tesla, etc. I personally consider than a good invention is more interesting to people than a musical hit. "Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions." I am very familiar with the patent system, but I do not understand this. I would not have minded organizing my business around something else than patents, but I could not, nor could anyone around. In the absence of patents, all other things being equal, I would have done something else, like growing potatoes. Sorry, I misinterpreted what you said. I thought you found normal that Tesla was poor while Ford was rich, since I was under the impression that people consider here that producing is noble, whereas inventing is noble only as long as it is for free. I want to be paid for my work, that is right.

I told them "do not initiate the use of force on your kids" or I will punch you in the face, because we like joking. But they surprised me by telling me that if I punched them, they would forgive me and pray for me, and they added that God does not initiate the use of force on anyone.

Are you happy Tesla died broke? Tesla invented fluorescent lights, the induction motor, the Tesla coil, used in TVs, the AC current, the 3 phase current, just to name a few.

You suggest I partner with people to manufacture tyres? But my inventions are just a very small part of the tyre manufacturing. You suggest I partner with someone who will set up a donation system for my inventions? But my inventions potentially interest only 15 people in the world. You need a lot more than 15 donators to make a living. Besides, do you see Michelin donating? This is not quite their business model. Ok, suppose Michelin is with DRO A, and so am I. Goodyear is with DRO B, from another country. What do we tell Goodyear? Remove the stuff from your tyres! But these companies are already starting law suits against each other constantly. With all these DROs and tons of claims, from thousands of inventions, this would be complete chaos. I always thought that patents were not so bad, and that it was impossible to come up with anything else that can work remotely as well. The alternatives you have given me so far lead me to completely stop doing what I do. Let me try one more time: my customers are big corporations who file patents on a daily basis. The only way for me to sell them something is either by being employed by one of them or using a method to deter them to use my work for free. There is a benefit for the community: my improvements benefit the entire community, as opposed to the buyers of a single brand. Because I do not grant a single corporation the monopoly, the corporation cannot use its acquired monopoly to sell its product more expensive. I sell (I do not set the prices) for, say, 25 million (maybe more if I am lucky) an improvement that saves the consumer, say, 10 billion (a couple dollars over the lifetime of each set of tyres incorporating the improvement, maybe more, maybe $10). The manufacturers do not make money on the invention. They just take the invention because without taking it they have a tiny disadvantage. Let's examine the case where I had worked for one of the manufacturers (provided I had be willing to work as hard, which I doubt). The company would have paid me in salary over 10 years, something like 1 or 2 million, say. it would have sold its tyres slightly more. The consumer of that company would have saved maybe 1 billion, the company would have pocketed maybe 500 million. The balances are: The independent inventor solution: 10 billion saved by the consumer, 50 million taken from the consumers in total The employed inventor solution: 1 billion saved by consumer, only a tenth of the consumers benefiting from the improvement, 500 million taken from the consumers in total. The donation, lectures, published papers solution: 10 billion saved by the consumer, 50 thousands taken from I don't know in total Note that 50 million out of 10 billion, and more, is merely 0.5%. So, I offer the consumers the possibility to save, say $10 each, provided that they give me 5 cents. They get to keep $9.95. If I understand you all, the only moral solution is when the consumer gets to keep $9.999.

First, do you know how long the monopoly last? Second, if i do not have some sort of monopoly, then, how will I live from my work?

Dsayers, I was not talking about "initiation of the use of force", I was talking about plain killing. We would not tell the statists, "we are going to initiate the use of force against you in order to eventually live in a stateless society where kids will be peacefully parented." They would not even understadn what it means. We just tell them, prepare to die. When we go stateless, will we also go humourless? I was just quoting someone when I used the words wanting and addiction. Mathematically , I just don't see how I can influence society. My actions represent 1/10^9 at most. I am not Stefan. No one listen to me. Besides, I have very bad ideas. I am immoral, I do things that revolts other libertarians, I want to violently coerced intellectual property protection and I want to forge a monopoly. I just can't see how my actions can influence society, let alone in a good way.

First thank your kind words and advice. Unfortunately, the case you describe is not mine. You are talking about the romantic case of the inventor who had discovered in his garage a revolutionary tyre that will last 100,000 miles, etc. I am talking about something very specific, ultra technical. I do not sell my improvements to a single company, I sell them to as many company as possible, so that it benefits everyone. One can make more money with signing exclusively with one company, but this is not the route I have taken. The improvements I contribute to are measureable, but do not make cars run races. "A researcher who may be close to the same invention could use subtle clues to come up with it and share it on the internet." Impossible. Besides, I always filed patents before releasing my inventions. "How much money does the new tire save for a prospective buyer?" Maybe 10 billion. "How much initial investment will it require to convert their tire factories?" Zero. "How long will it take before their investment in your invention will begin to pay off?" No investment needed, just formula changes and adjustment. In three month, the improved formulation is in the streets. "How much time and money have you invested in this invention so far?" Several million, for the lab, the patents and the rest. 20 years of my life. I literally never took a day off, never went on holiday. All I did ever since I was 15 was working on improving things, studying, modelizing materials, experimenting, etc. and having my kids. "If you expect (interesting word choice) to receive 25 million dollars over 10 years, doesn't it make sense to spend a small percentage of that amount to pitch the invention?" I do not need to pitch, I just need to send the manufacturers that i already know, and 100 pages report. This is what I have done in the past. i do not even need to see them. Again, this is very technical stuff, no need to pitch or whatever. "Use your invention to get hired at a lucrative tire company. Demonstrate your scientific brilliance and maybe become an Experimental Tire Engineer at Yokohama Tires." Oh no please, don't do this to me. I receive work offers daily. I am so happy not working for a company, being free exploring what I want, not having to commute, etc. Also, I do not design magical tyres, I am a chemist. I actually have been working in parallel on a completely new formulation, where you tyres would no longer be black, but this is a whole lot more complicated. I don't think I will ever succeed though. But thank you again for your enthusiasm.

How can someone build off of my work here? There are two kind of inventions: new things and improvements to things. Both are just as useful to people. You do not have such power, but you could have an opinion. Of course the market would not compensate me. Once the improvement to the tyre mix formula is known people simply copy it. The donation model cannot work in my case. You are talking about copyright here. There cannot be copyright on a tyre formulation improvement, even if it makes the car run better and longer. It takes 10 years to come up, or not, with the tyre mix improvement. The money that can be saved for the consumers is potentially billions. Billions because a few dollars a year multiplied by the number of consumers equal billions. 10 million/10 billion = 1/1000. It is not so much. How long? I said 10 years. Patents last 20 years, but in practice, count only 10 or 15 years. Yes, it is so simple that it has the potential to save 10 billion. So what should I have done, not having developed an original modelization of tyre material properties, built an expensive lab and come up with a tyre improvement that can save billions of dollars? Do you know that if I had worked for a tyre group, the group would have pocketed 2 billion and would have saved the consumer only 2 billions? What is better for the consumer? Here is what I will do. Since I cannot find an alternative solution to patents in my case, and since I am a libertarian and I do not want to do anything immoral, I certainly do not want to do things that revolts other libertarians, I do not want to violently coerced intellectual property protection, I do not want to forge a monopoly, I will simply abandon this invention thing. I have enough money already anyway. Please do not tell me to go work for one of these groups, I did the math for you, it is 100 times worse for the consumer, and the group would file twice as more patents than me with my stupid improvements. I am done with the tyres, and I am very serious here. I will use my lab to help out people or students and will concentrate on my 3 daughters and newborn son. I really hope I can stick to my decision. Thank you all for your time and input, it was very enlightening. Some of you could have done it in a friendlier way, but I guess I might not have understood.

How can you say that I want to get paid without working? Do you know how I improve tyre formulations? I do not add a little bit of salt and pepper and shake the mix. It is through computerized modelization of tyre material. I will work for 5 years without earning a penny, and then, if I my ideas were valid, I will be able to "sell" my inventions. I too continually produce improvements and small discoveries, but I just cannot see how people would be ready to donate in exchange for my improvements. Note that my work does not benefit people directly, unlike Stefan's. So, who would want to donate to me? And please do not tell me that I should manufacture tyres myself. Even if I could and did, this would not prevent the giants to reproduce my improved formulations instantly. As I said, ideas cannot be protected. This is where the patents come into play. Again, I am not against a different system, but what you have suggested cannot work in my case. Can you accept that I do not want to be employed by a company, that I want to be my own boss? Can you accept that there exist independent inventors? I can keep my ideas in my head, but the tyre manufacturers do not think the same. They are happy to pay me for my inventions. Of course, they would be even happier if they could get them for free, but then, I would ask them to sell their tyres for free too. "You want protection or you want to make money?" It is thanks to protection that I am actually capable of making money. Without protection, I would not have chosen to work so hard, and to take so much risk in terms of investment and time invested. I would have chosen to be employed and to work half as much. Tyres would have been very slightly inferior too.

I did not know that I was manipulative, that I supported immoral violence and that I was a savvy investor. I guess I still have a lot of self-knowledge to learn. If your intention was not to insult me, then, I will say thank you for opening my eyes. I think I answered all your questions. My inventions have nothing to do with the lab that I set up. I do not invent things because I have a lab. Goodyear's lab is 100 times bigger than mine. Yet, they do not invent what I invent. I already succeeded somewhat because I get decent royalties from previous inventions in the same field. Not all chemists invent things, you know. Do you condemn the desire to become very rich, have a beautiful house with an indoor swimming pool and horses? I do not force anyone to buy my inventions. It is up to them. I do not even set the prices, they set the prices themselves. Suppose you do not condemn the desire to become very rich, then, since I do not deserve to become rich by just inventing things, from what I have understood, then, who does?

In order to achieve our goal of a free society, should we kill all the ones who do not want freedom or who are addicted to violence and power? Luxfelix, I know very well that my action will have no influence on the society. Maybe I can convince one ot two persons, but there are still 6.9 billion people to convince. Who will this privatized army receive orders from? From the people? Help me, I am lost.

Dsayers, So, you do not want to address my point but instead accuse me of being manipulative, etc.? This is a very philosophical approach. Why would an inventor have to become a baker?? It is not because he had the great idea to add vanilla to baked good that he can make and sell good cakes. And you think that if you had gotten the idea of adding vanilla in cookies, you could have gotten moeny from a bakery? And you think that one week later all the bakeries would not have decided to add a couple drops of vanilla in half of their baked goods? Did I say that my effort was worth anything? It is worth what rich tyre manufacturing companies are ready to give me in exchange for the idea that they would not have gotten on their own. I am trying to better understand your argument. Are you saying that big international companies should not be prevented from using the ideas and work of small inventors for free? I invested over a million in my small lab. If I cannot get money from the tyre manufacturers, then, why should I bother trying to improve tyre mix composition?

I know that the state does not solve problems. I know that poverty, wars, etc. are caused by states. I am not the one who needs be convinced! All the other pople I know are not yet convinced. This is not even 70%, it is over 90%. Where do we start? I am an inventor, I am a practical person, I do not want to wait until I am dead to see a change. Who will help parents understanding that they are not doing a good job with their parents. My neighbors think that I am the one not doing a good job with my kids because i do not yell at them. State prisons or not, we still need to do something about the violent people ready to rape my daughters, for example. Genes are not inherited in utero. My neighbors are not interested in NAP. They have their own values. They prefer to believe in "god" and traumatize their kids. Sadly, states are getting stronger and stronger, and bureaucracy more and more present. So what makes you think that states will eventually cease to exist? How do you know that it is not the exact opposite that is happening? We have not been capable of proving 99% of the 7 billion inhabitants that something as silly as God does not exist, so how will we be able to prove them that States, which is already a bit less silly than God, are bad? 99% of the 7 billion inhabitants think that kids needs to be yelled at, beaten, that stealing and lying to your neighbors is fine, so where do we start? Also, there are societies on the planet that are much less inclined to living in a free society. How will we defend ourselves from their missiles if we have no more army and weapons? Forgive me, but I am not an intellectual, I do not understand abstractions. I am interested in a concrete philosophy that can lead to ideas that can be implemented here and now.

I think you have not understood the goal of my post. I am a libertarian, so I am not saying that we need states, etc. However, here, I provide you with a simple personal example, and you cannot come up with a concrete solution that would allow me to benefit from my invention. “Contracts and copyright claims”, as mentioned David, are things that already exist. But in my case, they cannot be used to protect my work. Anyone manufacturer is free to add my two new substances in his tyre mix without asking me for permission. Ideas cannot be protected. “Whoever purchases that product implicitly agrees to that contract”? But I do not sell any product. These chemical substances costs between 0.15 and 0.5 dollars for a kilo, and have been sold worldwide for decades. Or you think that Dunlop would send me a little bit of money on my Paypal account every time that add the substances to their mix? “Proof of concept”? I am a chemist. I do not manufacture tyres! We did our tests, but we did not equip a car with this new formulation. This job is for the tyre manufacturer, not for me. “Putting the idea online and granting access to the info after payment”? There are only 10 companies in the world interested in this info, and another 15 to a lesser degree. And once the formulation has been used by one of the manufacturer, why can’t they simply adopt it? They don’t need to pay me to get the information, once it is publicly known! Ideas cannot be protected. Why would anyone want to pay for something that he has not been asked any money for? I have never seen this. Even Stefan asks for money. “Asking for donation”? Who would donate? Goodyear, Continental, Bridgestone, Michelin, etc.? Or the people driving their cars? The tyre manufacturers are competing against each other. They spy at each other’s formulation, etc. Without patents, they would all of a sudden become sweet people, voluntarily sending money to small inventors, etc.? This is the Garden of Eden, you are talking about. MagnumPI, you would build tyres yourself? Good luck! Investors? I don’t need any. Our small lab has already all the equipment for the kind of research we are doing. I want to keep making money with my inventions. I do not want to become a tyre manufacturer, a chemical plant, a person asking for donation. Besides, I could not. I can only do what I am capable of doing. Besides, the fact that without patents, I would suddenly become forced to do new things, to have new talents, shows that you cannot find an alternative to patents unfortunately. I have personally tried to find one, based on my own example, but have failed to find any. Maybe some people out there are multi-faceted and could write books on tyre mix formulations and do seminars, but I cannot, and do not have the time. Even my wife would not be interested in buying my books. Dsayers, I said « your », simply to refer to the solution that each person will suggest here. You say that if my product is of value to people, people will exchange value with me. The problem is that I do not have a product. Imagine that my invention is equivalent to someone having discovered that vanilla can be added to cakes and ice cream, in proportions between 0.01% and 0.3%. Imagine that until this discovery, even though vanilla had been used extensively and sold for cheap, no one had ever thought of using it in culinary preparations. Who would want to exchange value with the vanilla guy? Once the world knows that a drop of vanilla adds great flavor, the guy is done with his discovery. No one will ever pay him or send him money. At best, he will have a Wikipedia page with his name on it. Maybe Oprah Winfrey will invite him once and they will eat biscuits and ice cream. I expect to receive over 25 million net in royalties in the next 10 years. Do you think that this kind of money is excessive for an idea that can improve tyres? The manufacturers do not think so. Without patents, I do not think that I would be able to get even $1000 for this invention, just like you would not get much if anything with the vanilla food flavoring idea. Is it possible that someone tells me precisely how I could make even 5 million with my improved tyre formulation without patents?

You did not answer my quetions. You just reveresed my figures, and said that it would be enjoyable to live in a free society. So, it seems to me that that your free society is purely theoretical. I was hoping that we could address the points I raised, and come up with practical solutions on how to implement a free society, at least somewhere in the world.

Hello everyone, I have invented a new tyre formulation. I am a chemist. Not only will the tyres last longer but it will slightly reduces the gaz consumption whithout compromising the road holding. The invention consists in adding two new substances in small proportions to the mixture before the "cooking" operation. These substances are not unknown, they are pretty common, but no one had ever thought of adding them in combination in a tyre composition. Suppose I could manufacture such new tyres, it would take 5 minutes using GC-MS to identify the two new components and their respective proportions. Needless to say that I already filed two international patents, and hopefully in a year, you will be using them with your car wihtout even knowing. What would you have done yourself? What should I have done in your patentless society?

Are you sure they are that good? Are you sre that in the libertarian world, it is the same ones who would be running large coporations?

I would personally prefer to live in a libertarian society. But what about the others? What if they don't? What if 70% of the people cannot cannot cope with liberty, with responsibility? What if 30% of the people are not honest, ready to cheat and lie to others? What if 10% of the people are genetically prone to violence? Isn't that completely imaginery to hope that a stateless countries will emerge some day?