How should I have protected my invention?

[dsayers]

You cannot compare what you call "reverse engineering the human body", which is actually understanding how the body works, with some people trying to plain copy something that someone else spent 10 years to come up with.

 

Why not? The whole purpose of reverse engineering is to understand how something works. What somebody does with that information is no longer the reverse engineering process.

 

And please do not always refer to my own activity. We are not talking about what I do

 

Why not? Is it uncomfortable? Why is that my responsibility? It SHOULD be uncomfortable to initiate the use of force against other people. And yes, we are talking about what you do, at your behest if you'll recall how/why/what this topic even exists for.

 

in the absence of copyright. Movies would immediately be distributed for free, or sold by anyone for one dollar as a DVD or through download, as soon as they have hit the market.

 

This is bigotry because we already have nearly unlimited amounts of empirical evidence to the contrary. From people doing what you describe even in the presence of copyright, to people releasing their stuff for free and profiting anyways. Also, the "problem" you present assumes once again that because somebody worked on something, they MUST be compensated. The market will decide what movies are worth. And to some degree already have considering some people have shelled out for the exact same movie on Beta, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, iTunes, Ultraviolet, and other digital download DRMs.

 

I know I bowed out for a while there, but have you once admitted that you were wrong about something in this thread? Or has it all been playing the victim card, deflection, and moving the goalpost?

[Josh F]

So.... you didn't invent the tire, how dare you try and understand and replicate the functions of a wheel! 

[luxfelix]

This is bigotry because we already have nearly unlimited amounts of empirical evidence to the contrary. From people doing what you describe even in the presence of copyright, to people releasing their stuff for free and profiting anyways. Also, the "problem" you present assumes once again that because somebody worked on something, they MUST be compensated. The market will decide what movies are worth. And to some degree already have considering some people have shelled out for the exact same movie on Beta, VHS, LaserDisc, DVD, HD DVD, Blu-ray, iTunes, Ultraviolet, and other digital download DRMs.

 

Some support: 

 

 

[JeanPaul]

I give up. My case is desperate. Yes, I admit I was wrong, not only about something but about everything. I promise I won't patent anyhting in the future. I will try to find partners, maybe on this board, and we will manufacture tyres.

If someone is interested in manufacturing high-end tyres, please let me know. I cannot do more than this. For example, I will not reverse engineer things myself and I will not copy what others just invented. Sorry, I still cannot. You have not yet convinced me that this is moral.

[dsayers]

Some support: 

 

 

 

You know, I usually avoid anecdotal evidence and minutia talk, but I just had to share something that some might find interesting if they're reading this thread. The same pursuit of philosophy that helped me to understand that intellectual property is a mismatch of terms also helped me to understand that exchanging value for value is justice. So while some might use scare tactics to suggest that understanding the reality of IP would lead to people paying less money overall, for me, it's actually led to an increased willingness to pay.

 

Take Hearthstone for example. That's a game that is free to play and there is nothing you get from paying that you couldn't get from playing. I went ahead and tossed them some cash anyways. I was receiving such value from the game that I felt the right thing to do was give value back. Consumers understand that buying things acts as a market signal. If you don't buy media X, then maybe they won't make a media X sequel for example. In fact, one of the reasons why I believe in pre-ordering things you're certain you will buy anyways is because that market signal may very well lead to increased production value in the interim.

 

And let's not forget that if you want people to spend more money on things they don't need, don't support the State that has stolen from you by (among other things) debasing your currency just in the time you've read this post!

[Triumph]

Quantifying rubber is even hella more complex

This guild thing is the first really interesting idea in this thread I think. But then how would we know if such and such really invented something or just copied something they found and tried to sell their stolen ideas to some companies from the guild? We would need here too examiners who could check some invention registry to see if the ideas are new or not.

Also, the guild would work only if most companies belong to it.

 

It seems to me that finding a better and workable alternative to patents is even more complex than improving tyres.

 

By the way, suppose a company infringes a patent knowingly, why can't the patent holder tell the infringing company: you are infringing, please stop doing so until 2020? This is actually already what is often done.

Just so you know, creating a unified equation to calculate the final shape of an amorphus material such as cookie dough during the manufacturing process is impossible. 

 

In a system like I am describing no one would own an idea.  That is to say, two guilds, or even two inventors could claim the same invention.  The difference is that a patent system monopolizes one idea, a "guild system" would monopolize a catalog of ideas.  And admittably there would be problems, but overall I think it would at least be competitive with the patent system.

[JeanPaul]

You know, I usually avoid anecdotal evidence and minutia talk, but I just had to share something that some might find interesting if they're reading this thread. The same pursuit of philosophy that helped me to understand that intellectual property is a mismatch of terms also helped me to understand that exchanging value for value is justice. So while some might use scare tactics to suggest that understanding the reality of IP would lead to people paying less money overall, for me, it's actually led to an increased willingness to pay.

 

Take Hearthstone for example. That's a game that is free to play and there is nothing you get from paying that you couldn't get from playing. I went ahead and tossed them some cash anyways. I was receiving such value from the game that I felt the right thing to do was give value back. Consumers understand that buying things acts as a market signal. If you don't buy media X, then maybe they won't make a media X sequel for example. In fact, one of the reasons why I believe in pre-ordering things you're certain you will buy anyways is because that market signal may very well lead to increased production value in the interim.

 

And let's not forget that if you want people to spend more money on things they don't need, don't support the State that has stolen from you by (among other things) debasing your currency just in the time you've read this post!

I of course agree with all you wrote, in particular exchanging value for value.

 

You have provided here a strong, moral in nature, argument against plain copying what others do. As I said, I could not allow myself to analyze a manufacturer’s tyre using gas chromatography and electronic microscopy in order to replicate what they did. My reluctance is actually backed up by your principle. What am I exchanging with the manufacturer? Nothing.

 

My second point is that that, if you have now convinced me that protecting one's inventions or creations through patenting and copyrighting is bad, you still have to convince another 7 billion people minus the one on this board. I do not care about my tyres. I can personally easily make a living without patenting things.

But how will you convince people that they should pay or donate to watch the latest 250 million dollars budget movie?

 

It seems to me that we will see much less innovation without patents and copyright. This will be the price to pay. I also think that there will be a lot of copying and counterfeiting, and people shamefully selling stuff that other people made, such as selling copied DVDs and books.

 

I know you are going to make a moral judgment of what I am going to say, but after I switch from independent inventor, living off his own patents to likely paid consultant receiving money in exchange of services, I will work much less, maybe 50 hours a week or less, down from 100 hours a week. I am sorry, but I will not have the same incentive. It is this whole research, inventions, patents under my own name and 7-8 digits financial rewards that got me so passionate about the work. You cannot tell me that I am an immoral person if I decide to work considerably less. Or if you do, I do not care.

I also know that my decision will not benefit the consumers (I presented detailed figures), but I agree that this is not as important as renouncing immoral initiation of the use of force.

[dsayers]

But how will you convince people that they should pay or donate to watch the latest 250 million dollars budget movie?

 

You're not listening. People can download movies now for free, yet still pay for tickets, physical copies, merchandise, etc. Why would I need/want to convince somebody to do what they're already doing?

 

It seems to me that we will see much less innovation without patents and copyright.

 

The opposite is true. Would you be able to be more productive if you were limited to a paper clip and a piece of string or if you could use any item without fear of being attacked for doing so? If rubber belts were copyrighted, we wouldn't have VCRs or cars.

 

Even if your claim were true, it would not suddenly make the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights suddenly logically valid.

 

You cannot tell me that I am an immoral person if I decide to work considerably less.

 

Why would you anticipate such a claim? Is you working/not working the initiation of the use of force? How then could it be described as immoral? Hasn't the crux of my position been that you can't tell others what to do?

 

Also, you're still operating under the premise that you will make less money if you can't steal it from people. While this may be true, this would only be limited by your own ability to meet human desire. Which means working less or less efficiently would only exacerbate what you view to be a problem rather than address/correct it.

[Josh F]

I give up. My case is desperate. Yes, I admit I was wrong, not only about something but about everything. I promise I won't patent anyhting in the future. I will try to find partners, maybe on this board, and we will manufacture tyres.

If someone is interested in manufacturing high-end tyres, please let me know. I cannot do more than this. For example, I will not reverse engineer things myself and I will not copy what others just invented. Sorry, I still cannot. You have not yet convinced me that this is moral.

you didn't invent the tire or the wheel, and you should pursue patents in this market it is the only way to remain competitive.  That is to say, if you invent something which someone else patents, you're locked out of your own invention.  Should you bribe the mafia not to break your knees?  Does that participating in an immoral mafia system?  Yes, and yes.  

[JeanPaul]

You too, Dsayers, think that I should keep patenting things, like Josh suggests?

 

Josh, is the patent system as immoral as the mafia system?

[12baird12]

You obviously aren't a sales guy.  In a world of no patents it comes down to who has the best marketing. Who's the better sales guy  There are a ton of businesses using the same products, selling the same products, and creating the same products. (example: most pain relieve medicine or pens)  But those that succeed have better marketing.  

As an inventor how do you make money?  You don't, unless you can do business too.

[Josh F]

You too, Dsayers, think that I should keep patenting things, like Josh suggests?

 

Josh, is the patent system as immoral as the mafia system?

I dont know, not my point though. Look don't stunt yourself based on some allegiance to principles, the world has enough martyrs.  

[dsayers]

You too, Dsayers, think that I should keep patenting things, like Josh suggests?

 

Josh, is the patent system as immoral as the mafia system?

 

It's incredible how many mistakes you're able to make with so few words.

 

Where did you ever get that I would support the initiation of the use of force?

 

Josh wasn't saying what you SHOULD do. He was simply pointing out this in a sport where everybody takes steroids, taking steroids is the only way to play on a level playing field. However, taking steroids is not the initiation of the use of force. Is it more important to you to live with integrity or to initiate the use of force against other people just because others are doing this? Note the continued heavy pursuit of bias confirmation.

 

Finally, morality isn't analog. A behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral (lacking a moral component). One immoral act cannot be more/less moral than another immoral act. You brought up the utilitarian consideration of innovation. Yet you totally avoided the refutation and challenge of your claim. You are not looking for the truth. You are looking for a way to tell yourself that the initiation of the use of force is okay. You don't need me for that.

[JeanPaul]

In a world of no patents it comes down to who has the best marketing. Who's the better sales guy There are a ton of businesses using the same products, selling the same products, and creating the same products. (example: most pain relieve medicine or pens)  But those that succeed have better marketing.

So, it is ideas versus bushitting basically? Would it be any better without patents then?

It's incredible how many mistakes you're able to make with so few words.

 

Where did you ever get that I would support the initiation of the use of force?

 

Josh wasn't saying what you SHOULD do. He was simply pointing out this in a sport where everybody takes steroids, taking steroids is the only way to play on a level playing field. However, taking steroids is not the initiation of the use of force. Is it more important to you to live with integrity or to initiate the use of force against other people just because others are doing this? Note the continued heavy pursuit of bias confirmation.

 

Finally, morality isn't analog. A behavior is either moral, immoral, or amoral (lacking a moral component). One immoral act cannot be more/less moral than another immoral act. You brought up the utilitarian consideration of innovation. Yet you totally avoided the refutation and challenge of your claim. You are not looking for the truth. You are looking for a way to tell yourself that the initiation of the use of force is okay. You don't need me for that.

You must understand that we are not all as smart as you.

 

I had read "should" in Josh's post, but I might not have understood correctly what he meant.

 

You are correct, raping a baby isn't more immoral than stealing an apple, both are immoral.

 

Taking steroids for track and field events isn't immoral because it does not rely on immoral use of initiation of the use of force.

 

I disagree with one thing: I am not trying to tell myself that the immoral use of initiation of the use of force is fine, on the contrary. The problem is that I am reading conflicting opinions. Some say, I should keep patenting, while others are saying that I should not participate in immoral use of initiation of the use of force. I am looking for concrete answers, not abstract answers that I cannot understand because of my limited philosophical knowledge.

[MagnumPI]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40

The product was  not  patented in 1953 to avoid disclosing the details of its composition

[JeanPaul]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WD-40

The product was  not  patented in 1953 to avoid disclosing the details of its composition

Good point. I will try to manufacture tyres keeping the formulation secret, as I said. There are already some people on this board who have manifested their interest in this venture. We will call them the NAP tires.

 

"If you are tired of IUF tires, choose NAP tires!"

[Josh F]

If you don't seek a patent, another person can get one and use it against you.  Once you own a patent it is yours to determine how other people can use it, and you're very capable of making the license for it extremely open.  You can also just choose not to sue anyone for patent infringement.  But letter someone else get the patent will give them political leverage to prevent you from doing something you want to do with your own idea.

 

Also, I highly recommend you do not attempt to compete against large tire companies, that is a business which would require millions in start up (fyi)

[JeanPaul]

May I point out, Josh, that once you have invented something and have implemented it, no one else can patent it. Other than this technical point, thank you for your advice.

[Josh F]

Good look spending millions of dollars and years in court trying to prove that.  You seem extremely uninterested in any perspective which solves your issues, I genuinely think you're more interested in an excuse for why your invention wont reach the market than promoting your invention.  I certainly would not invest in this idea if this is how you think about business.  

[JeanPaul]

Good look spending millions of dollars and years in court trying to prove that.  You seem extremely uninterested in any perspective which solves your issues, I genuinely think you're more interested in an excuse for why your invention wont reach the market than promoting your invention.  I certainly would not invest in this idea if this is how you think about business.  

I have been patenting my inventions/improvements for the past 15 years, and have been able to either sell them or get exclusive or non-exclusive royalties from two thirds of them. So, I cannot say that my inventions have not reached the market.

 

As for patenting something that has already been invented, this is really not something patent filers are looking to do. Proving that something was already public known at the time someone filed for a patent is not complicated. I am very familiar with patents, you know.

 

I never thought of manufacturing anything myself, especially tyres. But some people said here that what I was doing was profoundly immoral, so I told people out there, let's make our own tyres without using patents, and we will see how it goes. If no one is interested, then, I will have no other option than going back to patenting my work, because I do not think that I can ask drivers at the red lights for donations.

[WasatchMan]

If you discovered a different formula to make tires better I would recommend you try to seek compensation and value by selling your skills as an innovator, which is a rare and valuable skill to have.

 

I am guessing this doesn't come about with trial and error by continually tweaking the mixture until the optimal properties are arrived at.  If this was the case, it would have likely already been discovered because technicians could be trained to go through the same process. Therefore, the real value you posses is the ability to extrapolate principles, not that you discovered one tire formula that is better than the existing ones. 

 

The bio-chemical mixture of the tire exists in nature.  You discovered it in nature, but you cannot own natural phenomena.  This would be like Einstein saying he was the owner of General Relativity, and anyone who uses this natural phenomena owes him money.  In a free market you could make everyone that buys tires from you sign a contract that they cannot use the tire in order to reverse engineer the formula.  Then you could hire a legal tea, and try to sue anyone that violated this contract. However you could not go after someone who independently discovered the formula, because the formula exists in nature, not in you.     

 

At the end of the day, all this worrying about others using your ideas is going to take away from you creating more ideas.  The same energy that invented a better tire formula can be spent finding other innovations, instead of protectionism to make sure you receive the exact amount of fair compensation for your work.

[Josh F]

I have been patenting my inventions/improvements for the past 15 years, and have been able to either sell them or get exclusive or non-exclusive royalties from two thirds of them. So, I cannot say that my inventions have not reached the market.

 

As for patenting something that has already been invented, this is really not something patent filers are looking to do. Proving that something was already public known at the time someone filed for a patent is not complicated. I am very familiar with patents, you know.

 

I never thought of manufacturing anything myself, especially tyres. But some people said here that what I was doing was profoundly immoral, so I told people out there, let's make our own tyres without using patents, and we will see how it goes. If no one is interested, then, I will have no other option than going back to patenting my work, because I do not think that I can ask drivers at the red lights for donations.

I dont think you're accurate about the cost and hazards of dealing with a patent claim in court.  It is absolutely complicated, expensive and time consuming.  Have you ever sued or been sued by someone over a patent claim?  

 

Look I'm against IP, wholeheartedly, but I'm also against the military and if you got drafted I'd tell you to use whatever means necessary to defend yourself.  

[JeanPaul]

I agree, Josh, that patent claims in court are not something one is looking into. I have had my fair share of trouble already with patents, but this never went to court. This is also because I do not use my patents myself, but give rights to companies.

 

I will stop patenting things when the people on the board have come up with either an innovative tyre company, or come up with a new stateless society, or have set up a donation system for me that will allow me to support my little family. Needless to say that I still have many years of patenting ahead.

 

Every time I see a tyre in the street that incorporates my little improvement, I feel quite proud. Also, my patenting has not yet caused anyone to suffer any loss, any physical violence, I never heard of someone being sent to jail because of my improvements. However, i have saved people hundreds of millions of dollars, and allowed them to drive safer. I think this is not so bad. I am not sure that everyone on this board can claim such achievement. I see my accomplishment (saving money to people, allowing people to drive safer, longer) is not immoral, it is rather a noble cause. I prefer to stay on a practical level, than on a theoretical level, because for people that drive their cars, this is what matters.

 

I do not invent arms, I do not work for the state, I do not hit my children, I am ready to relocate to a country with less state, but sorry guys, I am not going to make my own tyres (why not spaceships), or be the first inventor living off donations, etc. You start first.

 

If you discovered a different formula to make tires better I would recommend you try to seek compensation and value by selling your skills as an innovator, which is a rare and valuable skill to have.

 

I am guessing this doesn't come about with trial and error by continually tweaking the mixture until the optimal properties are arrived at.  If this was the case, it would have likely already been discovered because technicians could be trained to go through the same process. Therefore, the real value you posses is the ability to extrapolate principles, not that you discovered one tire formula that is better than the existing ones. 

 

The bio-chemical mixture of the tire exists in nature.  You discovered it in nature, but you cannot own natural phenomena.  This would be like Einstein saying he was the owner of General Relativity, and anyone who uses this natural phenomena owes him money.  In a free market you could make everyone that buys tires from you sign a contract that they cannot use the tire in order to reverse engineer the formula.  Then you could hire a legal tea, and try to sue anyone that violated this contract. However you could not go after someone who independently discovered the formula, because the formula exists in nature, not in you.     

 

At the end of the day, all this worrying about others using your ideas is going to take away from you creating more ideas.  The same energy that invented a better tire formula can be spent finding other innovations, instead of protectionism to make sure you receive the exact amount of fair compensation for your work.

Exactly, inventors try to seek compensation and value by selling what they found, their innovations. But some people here do not seem to understand. They think that there is nothing special inventing, that inventions or any other production of the mind should become domain public. Unfortunately, patenting is the only viable alternative, and I believe that they failed to prove that there could be another viable alternative.

 

The mixtures are not of biochemical nature. These substances do not exist in nature, just like a computer does not exist in nature. Atoms exist in nature, but that is pretty much it. It is just like saying that a house exists in nature.

 

In a free market I could not make anyone buying tyres sing anything because I do not sell tyres. Besides, you cannot ask buyers to sign 100 contracts. Anyway, what difference does it make, buyers do analyze rubber? This would not prevent any company to analyze the rubber and try to replicate the composition. They could for example use an old tyre, buy it from a buyer.

 

Regarding someone who independently invented the same thing. Such like in science, it is the first person who made the discovery that is considered the author, here the inventor, patent or not.

 

I do not know what you mean exactly in your last paragraph? What exactly do you suggest to make the inventor's life easier?

[12baird12]

So, it is ideas versus bushitting basically? Would it be any better without patents then?

It's not bullshit.  Marketing is story telling.  The better stories are closer to the truth.  

 

What I'm saying is, without patents you'd have to sell your own inventions.  Like get manufacturing and distribution.  The only difference between you and Joe down the street would be how well you market your product.  If you say it's far superior or you have better service than Joe's and that was the truth you'd win.  If that wasn't the truth people would catch on quickly and you'd lose.  

 

There is no easy way to do it as an inventor without the assistance of the state.    

 

What happens  right now is called extortion.  An inventor gives a patent right to a business.  The business does the hard work of manufacturing, marketing and selling the inventor's designs.  The business then pays off the inventor to avoid government goons from taking that money by force.

 

Of course you'd be in favor of patents.  That's how you make a living. Not saying it's bad or good.  Just saying you have to be true to yourself.  But what do I know.  I work for a government school.

[JeanPaul]

It's not bullshit.  Marketing is story telling.  The better stories are closer to the truth.  

 

What I'm saying is, without patents you'd have to sell your own inventions.  Like get manufacturing and distribution.  The only difference between you and Joe down the street would be how well you market your product.  If you say it's far superior or you have better service than Joe's and that was the truth you'd win.  If that wasn't the truth people would catch on quickly and you'd lose.  

 

There is no easy way to do it as an inventor without the assistance of the state.    

 

What happens  right now is called extortion.  An inventor gives a patent right to a business.  The business does the hard work of manufacturing, marketing and selling the inventor's designs.  The business then pays off the inventor to avoid government goons from taking that money by force.

 

Of course you'd be in favor of patents.  That's how you make a living. Not saying it's bad or good.  Just saying you have to be true to yourself.  But what do I know.  I work for a government school.

Marketing is often bushitting, unfortunately.

 

I do not invent objects than can be manufactured, I improve them.

 

I would not need patents if the company I went to visit would be honest, and ready to pay me for my contributions if they decide to use them.

 

No, I do the hard work. They just need to alter the rubber mix as I have described it. It takes them a couple months to run their tests to corroborate mine. It took me 10 years.

 

I am not in favor of patents per se, I am in favor of a system where independent inventors can exist.

[Josh F]

It's not bullshit.  Marketing is story telling.  The better stories are closer to the truth.  

 

What I'm saying is, without patents you'd have to sell your own inventions.  Like get manufacturing and distribution.  The only difference between you and Joe down the street would be how well you market your product.  If you say it's far superior or you have better service than Joe's and that was the truth you'd win.  If that wasn't the truth people would catch on quickly and you'd lose.  

 

There is no easy way to do it as an inventor without the assistance of the state.    

 

What happens  right now is called extortion.  An inventor gives a patent right to a business.  The business does the hard work of manufacturing, marketing and selling the inventor's designs.  The business then pays off the inventor to avoid government goons from taking that money by force.

 

Of course you'd be in favor of patents.  That's how you make a living. Not saying it's bad or good.  Just saying you have to be true to yourself.  But what do I know.  I work for a government school.

I don't think this is true at all.  If a guy came to me saying he could improve my product based on years of research he did, that is a commodity I would pay for without a doubt.  

[WorBlux]

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.

 

 

1. Your making the assumption that there would still be 15 tire companies in a free market whereas there is reason to believe there would be multiplication without monopoly privileges keeping them together and competitors out.

 

2. Without patents assume the process is copied in one year, time to take the formulation and test it. You then get 9.1 billion saved by consumers, The one to two million to the employee and 50 million to the first company.  How is that not a win?

 

3. You're overlooking a large group on potential donators as well... AAA, teamster unions, and similar groups that could benifit thier members by making tires more reliable and cost-effective. You say there's 10 billion of saving out there to be gained so you only have to capture a small fraction of it for your research to pay off in spades.

 

4,. Right now as is, patents may be the only way for some independent inventors to counter the concentrations of power and industry that have occurred under the intellectual monopoly regime. However the independent inventor as a class is largely a myth, and the right answer to the problem does not arise from a cost-benefit analysis done for one person or even a single small class of persons.  What you do might take 5 cents per 10 dollars, but in some arena's rents on intellectual monopolies total up to nine of those ten dollars.

 

5. If your method and materials are so effective at creating marginal gains of tire improvements, why don't you sell that? Either as a outright sale or as a consulting company?

[JeanPaul]

1. Your making the assumption that there would still be 15 tire companies in a free market whereas there is reason to believe there would be multiplication without monopoly privileges keeping them together and competitors out.

 

2. Without patents assume the process is copied in one year, time to take the formulation and test it. You then get 9.1 billion saved by consumers, The one to two million to the employee and 50 million to the first company.  How is that not a win?

 

3. You're overlooking a large group on potential donators as well... AAA, teamster unions, and similar groups that could benifit thier members by making tires more reliable and cost-effective. You say there's 10 billion of saving out there to be gained so you only have to capture a small fraction of it for your research to pay off in spades.

 

4,. Right now as is, patents may be the only way for some independent inventors to counter the concentrations of power and industry that have occurred under the intellectual monopoly regime. However the independent inventor as a class is largely a myth, and the right answer to the problem does not arise from a cost-benefit analysis done for one person or even a single small class of persons.  What you do might take 5 cents per 10 dollars, but in some arena's rents on intellectual monopolies total up to nine of those ten dollars.

 

5. If your method and materials are so effective at creating marginal gains of tire improvements, why don't you sell that? Either as a outright sale or as a consulting company?

1. What would it change, the total number of tyres would be the same.

 

2. I do not want to make only one million for my 10 year contribution.

 

3. People would donate to me?

 

4. I agree that there are not enough independent inventors.

 

5. In today's society or in a patentless society?

[shirgall]

1. What would it change, the total number of tyres would be the same.

 

 

Not entirely correct. If your invention is good enough, it increases the perceived value of cars to people and as a result more should get made. Thus, the number of tires needed might actually increase.

[JeanPaul]

Not entirely correct. If your invention is good enough, it increases the perceived value of cars to people and as a result more should get made. Thus, the number of tires needed might actually increase.

I meant, with more tyre companies, there would not be more tyres sold. I was answering WorBlux.

 

I was not talking about my inventions. My inventions do not make people buy more tyres. Actually, tyres last a tiny bit longer when they incorporate my improvement/technology. But the difference is not perceivable to the user.