That's probably why the people who knew their shit voted unanimously against it.

Truth is state university and the inventors together hold the right to the patent and they can license it out to form a company. So the profit is shared among the inventors (private) and the university for improving general education and facilities since state universities are Non-for-profit. That's why university research and tech transfer and licensing are popular and ethical.

and football stadiums

vasalem very true. But usually stadiums are donor based. Famous alumni use stadium for posterity.

Also, the scientists were rewarded for their years of research: that's what they were _paid_ for

Patenting a piece of the human genome isn't greedy and disgusting otherwise? If they're scum enough to patent a line of human genetic code, of course they'll charge a fortune for it; that's the point.

screaming of course, its only natural that plants reproduce, u cannot patent nature, even acording to neoliberal law, that's FLAGRANTLY unlawful and judges are eather geting bribed or are just ignoring law acordind to their ideology

Not really, because testing for something in a gene sequence is not complex or new, and relatively cheap, if the gene isn't patented, anyone could just check for it in their business, that isn't even what Myriad achieved, It's the Gene Sequence that is new, the method has to include the gene, and if the Gene cannot be patented, I don't think there is anyway around that ruling, plus, someone would have taken them to court for that anyway

I guess KarlosBricks knew better

Oh hey! I love your videos! I also happen to agree with you here. The genome itself shouldn't be patented, but a method of finding it/modifying should begin.

FutureNow I agree - I'd have no issue with Myriad patenting a testing kit optimised for BRCA1-2 mutations, but patenting the mutations themselves is silly.

The distinction is not so clear though. Library of Babel is an online library with anything that has been written and could ever be written in English. When you write something, do you really create it or do you just discover a meaningful entry?

FutureNow Well said...

Exactly. The worst part is that they patented BRCA1 only knowing that it was involved in breast cancer. Not knowing why and how. Imagine patenting the rest of the human genome, because one of the genes codes for something people would, sometime in the future, be interested in researching. It doesn't make sense. A gene modification on the other hand is like a product, indeed, so then it would make sense. That's like saying you take the raw material, which is the organism, and you make a product of it by changing its genome. (I study life sciences and we literally begun Genetics at the start of the year (the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were mentioned in lectures and my book "Genetics: analysis and principles by Brooker". Yeah I have to put this part in the comments so you know that I am not a person that just googled a few things).

that was EXACTLY what i thought it would be like patenting newtons gravitational equations

Perhaps more specifically the only known/possible corresponding protein, as one gene might code for multiple proteins through _alternative splicing?_

That is certainly true for most organisms (bacteria, plants etc.). But for some reason it is the convention for primates and some domestic animals to write gene names with all capital letters.

Selek No, that's just not true. I have read hundreds of scientific studies and wrote a few myself. Human genes are certainly written the way I mentioned in scientific publications.

There is a difference between scientific publications and a KZfaq Video. Google search BRCA1 - Every link has it in caps.

the word is "pedantry" lol

You are a bold one

Would've run out after a while tho...

It is going to happend probably, we got a huge century upon us

Well that's because it was funded under president Roosevelt, so really they couldn't patent it even if they wanted to, that is, unless Roosevelt wished otherwise, which was certainly not gonna happen. Other vaccines have been patented, they're just so widespread that their patent "effect" is almost negligible. Well, at least to the public eye and not the laboratories behind the scene, anyway

Also, your bitch ass is everywhere

Pretentious Altruist Yeah I am in many places

Pretentious Altruist he uses like bots

And just like Volvo and the seatbelt.

He meant that people wont take risks in the future to research stuff like this if they see that they cant make a lot of money from it or get there expenses back in because they wont have a monopoly on it.

And then what? You've to make further inventions too, ryt? Why would they do that?

Sikij Karki daaamn dark as hell

I didn't fully understand that ending. Can you explain, please?

@@randomdude9135 gene editing in humans might seem unethical, but it also allows preventing terrible genetic diseases like alsheimers or cancer

@@ignaspetrauskas8763 I guess gene editing will end up in countries like China. Democracies will have a hard time justifying that. Especially in US where people don't even trust vaccines so that's that.....

@@randomdude9135 I dont deny the theat if gene eiditng im just summarising what wendover says in the end. But jeah, its still scary.

Exactly! I don't like that this video poses genetic research as something that must be funded or encouraged by patents and the selling of their contributions as products. As someone who is going into genetic research, I can assure you that there is no shortage of people or passion going into genetic research.

But Darren, how could you ever think ground breaking research is enough in itself? Wouldn't you like to price gouge the people who can benefit form what you and your colleagues discover for no reason?... Its almost like you're human or something. Going for your passion, while getting the warm fuzzies over what you do, might do wonders for people... because you care. Because you're human. Not a profit bot.

That has nothing to do with Monsanto, or any big company. Bananas, Apple, grapes, and most fruits are all clones. The same fruit being planted thousands of times. Try using the seed of a fruit you bought and it will taste and look different, yet all apples (from a certain variety) you by will look and taste the same. This is what happens... it happened before Monsanto and will continue to happen. It's economics. When you find a plant that is perfect you grow, produces a lot and sells well... you will want to only produce that plant. This has nothing to do with patents. But as for you concern about a disease getting into Monsanto's crops. It's actually less likely than with non Monsanto, all natural, crops. Since Non GMO crops, the farmer uses a portion of the seeds harvested to plant again... the genetic variation is almost none... se a disease spreading is more likely than with an GMO, which changes every year... since farmers have to buy new seeds. This makes it a single decease being able to wipe a entire crop almost impossible.

agreed, copyrighting people is just wrong.

Exactly what I was thinking.. dumb appellate court overturning the decision foh

But then we're in the same place practically. If you own the test you can restrict access in the same way.

But it doesn't necessarily prevent competition. If there's a particular way to test for the gene and it's patented, what's to stop you, who has another test from patenting that test and selling it cheaper. Free market competition. Not possible if someone owns the gene itself. It's the difference between having a patent on the automobile vs. having a patent on a specific mass production technique used in your factories.

You are totally Wrong R.B. The technique or technology used for the test needs to be developed separately for each gene you are testing for. Further more each test needs to go through a FDA approval process before it can be used. This process requires intellectual know how to develop. Just knowing "of" the gene means nothing. Since the test and the methods used for the test is not a naturally occurring product, it is there for legal to patent. Where as the gene is naturally occurring so it is not patent-able. For example if I invented a solar panel, I can patent the solar panel since it is not a thing of nature. I however can not patent the sunlight light which it relies on to function. However if your argument is that "one should get a service that other ppl created for free" than you have a case there. -_-!

A lot. About the seeds, original ones have started to go extinct, there is the possibility that the source of all food coming from agriculture will be controlled by companies. You would not be allowed to harvest seeds from crops (or the crops wouldn't produce seeds). Imagine communities in developing countries not being allowed to farm without paying a USA company.

More like what's wrong with the government. Patents are a deal between the government and a company. If there was only voluntary exchange between people (capitalism) there most likely wouldn't be any patents.

This isn't just America, just the biggest companies are almost always in America.

If the companies controlling the seeds and other products didn't have a selfish mindset, the pros would outway the cons.

+aantony2001 Are you sure seeds are going extinct? I gotta believe the seed bank in Svalbard still has some of everything.

Roger DeVeaux or Orphan Black?

we just watched that film today in school in biology😂

My thoughts exactly. And Star Trek as well - Eugenics War.

Looking for this comment.

I love that movie.

Aiman 😂

there will be random gene loot boxes

This would literally justify being racist, cause now there's a reason to blame someone for not being equipped with the right genes, if you're susceptible to cancer that's the fault of your father's, they should have worked harder to buy you the best of the best. Knowing how business do their thing right now, we will unleash a dystopian world were having the good genes will be expensive as f, effectively segregating the society into 2 groups the rich and healthy and the poor and disposable people.

@@angelenriquechavezponce1629 Nothing would ever justify racism

orye

Or naught

Our Nout

ortistic ornot

Ornat

Hmm I misspelled 'you're as 'your' my bad. Also some one replied why should we believe you on the bell icon (not sure why it isn't appearing here in the comments?) GOOD be suspicious and investigate more than one source. Just because its online doesn't make it true;)

As someone who is an actual geneticist, funding is haaaard. Grant applications are hard. Even private companies have to sink a lot of money into R&D. But maybe what you're saying is true for america? It seems unlikely though.

Nienke Fleur Luchtmeijer that sounds like an interesting idea. ...but I'm concerned about money laundering then. "How look, we haven't made enough profit to lose our patent." Meanwhile in HQ:"Now, how long can we keep that lie going?" You might not even need to launder the money if your good enough about lying about how much you made.

chillin chum yes, it would require quite a bit of transparency, but I think regulations to make (farmaceutical) companies more transparant should be made anyways. Also, even if they'd manage to do so, it would still mean that they aren't incentivized to ramp up the prices in order to make enough profit

Aren't those more so to actually create the test rather than profit from it? The point in this case is for them to actually be able to do something with their creation once it's finished. I don't think genes should be patented, personally, but it's definitely a dilemma.

And public recognition and professional advancement.

@@rodentlover100 I don't see where is the dilemma. If the government funds building a road, the construction company builds it for the government so it cannot charge people for using it. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

same

same

Tell Me This so was the pickaxe

so punnyy

xD

Booo! :p

shovel was the real star of A Cure for Wellness

That's a myth bro

piprod01 Your a dumbass

you scares me

Genetically modified airplanes

Hmm@@NachDeaDSilenT, looks like a reference tho i don't get it...

1905parth That’s socialist.

That could be slower. How motivated would you be if you knew that regardless of the time you took to get your results, you get paid the same salary from public funds?

It doesn't mean there shouldn't be any pressure put on researchers. Just that instead of being paid by a private company they would be by the state. It would allow different research teams to work together to get the best answer instead of working against each other. Anyway i do agree that there might be some flaws with that system, but i do think that most researchers (well at least in Europe where i live) are doing this job because they are aiming for the greater good and not only for money.

CACubed yes it is

Wolves bandwagon fan since 1998 well what he was highlighting is that some people might not have that much ambition, and would be satisfied with their job and salary knowing that they could do the minimum about it.

A guy deregulating the internet was inspired by a monopoly trying to get complete control of a human genome? Are you stupid?

Fucking communist

Allowing your baby to reproduce is a DLC you have to buy extra. Or you can get the "Generation pass", which includes all the DLCs.

If you want to let the baby live you would have to pay for some extra microtransactions

At least in America that would be strictly against the constitution and would result in a hell of an uproar from a lot of people. I highly doubt anything like that would happen.

@@dollgen The Supreme Court has very different interpretations on what is and what isn't constitutional

Tundra14 well then expect delayed medical advancements including things such as cures for cancer

I'm ok with that, as long as everyone will have access to it when it's ready, not just the elite few.

Patenting is a bad idea period. Lots of important discoveries were made by the public sector and specific state initiatives. And even with patented technologies, most of the benefits they brought to humanity didn't materialize until the patent expired and they became affordable. Science and innovation would certainly not disappear if you abolished intellectual property.

Sobaken seriously? All I can do is laugh at this statement. Discovery and innovation happening at the state level? You’re joking right? I’ve never heard someone claim that the state can innovate and discover better than private free market enterprise

+Jordan Most research that produced the technologies that we all use was done by scientists working in the academia, publicly funded universities and labs. Just look up any famous inventor and see if they worked for an institution solely interested in science or for a patent-grabbing corporation. X-rays, penicillin, vaccines, insulin, all done by universities not for profit. Even the breast cancer diagnosis from the video was developed by the University of Utah, before the some of their staff left and started a private company.

Designer babies for all!

To not pursue that technology is to doom millions if not billions of people to painful, horrendous deaths. I don't really see a clear argument that the unknown result of pursuing it is worse.

Revan ...for a price $$$$

I will patent the greed gene.

Aggamemnon populos--I'm afraid it's in the public domain.

Greed? I'd say your own good or selfishness. You using that word only informs us about your bitterness and envy for the so called greedy and selfish. But you have to ask yourself, what is more selfish, sacrificing great things to get towards your own goals and dreams or to force others to give up theirs so you can live the best possible life with the least amount of sacrifice?

Exactly, when you present an actual benefit to genetic modification it makes perfect sense to do it.

You're playing a dangerous game

Martin Dlužanský pros are healthier smarter more beautiful children or ppl. Cons possibly creating a race of ppl that could feel superior n overthrow the non superior. Or do to calitalism only the rich could have the best kids and any non designer kids could b seen as inferior for life! Its a hard choice but tbh there are already designer babies in some super wealthy homes

However companies should NOT be able to have patents on human beings!

triigga s I agree, it’ll definitely create an even bigger gap between developing and developed countries, and also create a big gap inside developed countries. People who have money to genetically modify their kids to be smart will be much more favored than poor families who couldn’t. Therefore richer families will become richer and poorer become poorer.

Penny Lane very true ! But what if it is the course of human evolution. It is the survival of the fittest after all.

Penny Lane it would have to be. If anyone can have their kids have the right DNA for all of the favorable traits, then humans would become more and more similar, likely damaging human DNA over time. Tbh, I say we just don’t engage in this at all.

The fundamental issue is that there is no way to implement this sort of technology like that without massively hindering its development. This sort of embryo editing, once it becomes good enough to do that, will likely be very expensive to do. At that point, you could either outright the ban use of it until it becomes affordable enough that you could make it a public service (Which would realistically just drive the use of it underground, which is never good) or you could try and roll with the punches and accept there will be an unlucky bunch (Keep in mind every human today is classified in this "unlucky bunch") until the technology is cheap enough to become a public service; though with the significant issue of this leaving a mark which pushes inequality purely due to circumstance, but we've had stuff like that before, a century or so and it'll probably be dealt with.

You are so right! If we were to allow patenting genes we would pathe the way for monopolys controlling the futur of makind. How can we have a beight futur if we pritty much ensure that a rich minority is going to dominate the rest? And what do we think is gonna happen once we actually create seperste races of men? I mean we allready had genocides due to religion or nationality. But what is the futur of a world where all men are created differently? Our democratie can not survive that. The basic principle of equality is broken. Even the free (capitalist) market will be destroyed by this because a) the monopoly on genes would lead to mega companies that not only controll their respektive part of the market but expand into far more (just like Amazon or Facebook but much, much larger) Also if people dont get equal chances of succes in life we will hurt the free market. Just imagen a 'normal' boy is Born to parents that are too poor to afford genetic modifications. And this boy now happens to be a genius. He will never be able to give his talent and knowledge to the world because he comes from the wrong 'class' of humans. This kind of thing allready happens today but it will be way worse if we allow genetic modifications to become only affordable for certaint groups of rich people

@@CassCassCassime Yeah it is going to be very hard to ensure that genetic modifications will be distributed fairly without slowing down their developement. That is however for me exactly the price we should be willing to pay in order to prevent a futur of different cast of humans!! We can still develope these thing in colleges etc. this will slow down the whole process but it is the only way to prevent a futur distopia. And even this might not work.... Only prohibiting changing your childs DNA wont work. Because what do you do if someone breakes that law? I mean sure the parents and the doctor coukd be send to jail and or pay a Lot of money. But.... What do you do with the child? What could our society do with the illegaly enhanced child? Kill it? Let it life with all its advantages outclassing all others leading to a huge black market of illegal modifications? Killing it would be very immoral yet at the same time the only solution, as I dont think you can undo the changes once the child is born... That is why a Prohibition is not going to work

Then provide an alternative that allows companies to benefit from their R&D dollars. Without some mechanism that "protects the investment" of inventors, especially in the high dollar arenas, R&D won't happen. It's too costly, especially if a competitor can simply leach off your hard spent R&D dollars. For high cost, long lead technologies, "crowd source" simply isn't economically feasible. Unless you can provide an alternative mechanism that makes it profitable to spend~5 years (or more) and billions of dollars, CPU technology will simply stop. Intel, AMD, Samsung and others rely on their proprietary technology as a means to distinguish their products, and in turn, make a profit. I argue that patents are a necessity for technological advance. Patents can use some work, but are functional. (as opposed to copyrights, which are completely broken now). Patents don't prevent competitors from creating alternative technologies. They FORCE competitors to find work-arounds and alternatives. That said, as I mentioned , patents can use some work. Especially in how they are enforced; they can easily be used by large corporations to press litigation that smaller competitors can't afford. IT doesn't matter if Bob's Electronics' new fuel injector does not infringe GM's patents, because all it takes is GM litigating Bob to where he can't afford. But, that's a problem of the courts, IMHO, and not an inherent flaw in patent law. (though there are a few things that still annoy me as an inventor type)

Using the computer industry to argue patents is very foolish. In fact many of the companies just cross license all those patents and don't make any money on it or nothing compared to dev costs. Instead it mostly serves as a very large barrier of entry to new competitors. So unless you're a really big company that can afford to develop enough new computer patents to enter the market, you're going to have a really tough time of it. The point above is in fact even so true that competitors just buy their competitors CPUs, look at how they work, and then replicate in their own. This is part of the reason the difference between AMD and Intel isn't really all that large. There are limits what you can do with reverse engineering though, as part of the difference is more in the 'secrets' of manufacturing. Where you don't necessarily tell others how you got your process to work. (Yes, the chip making equipment can be bought from another company, but that's not the same as getting a working chip out of it. It's just the prerequisite to even trying) In computer software the situation is even more crazy, with the standard advice typically all to often being that programmers should not look at patents, just completely ignore them. Not only are they useless usually in developing better programs but all to often it only makes you more liable. And it's impossible to achieve anything with out crossing countless patents. So just ignore and proceed. Thus the entire computer industry makes profits despite patents, rather then because of it. Because patents are an active extra cost on top of everything else. Computers and software would be cheaper with out them. Due to this it's been at times argued that many fields are probably not good areas for patent law, as in patent law greatly diminishes progress rather then accelerating it. And it's at times been suggested that perhaps different mechanisms for encouraging progress should be used. As an example awhile ago for space development you had a series of X prizes, which would give you a certain sum if you completed a certain goal. And this did indeed attract some companies to give it a shot. Even though in that case the prizes were really falling a fair bit short of actual costs. If they actually covered costs one could imagine even more would have shown up. (For fighting various diseases its pretty obvious that offering prizes would be pretty easy to organise as well. What with it being obvious which diseases might be a problem and how much damages they're doing. (Ie Malaria, Flu, etc)

+Nathan Buxton your better alternative to patents being? btw, patents are not supposed to rule over discoveries (naturally occurring things that we found out about), they are supposed to rule over inventions (new artificially made things that can have an application in everyday lives)... it is not a perfect system and it is basically the wild, wild west in the US (it is the most permissive IP system in the whole planet, you can basically patent anything there isn't a court ruling against), but it keeps people from just copying the finished product from someone who spent years researching it (like it is the case for pharmaceuticals, for example)...

lol bs

If anything, the software industry, at least where it pertains to Linux, has shown that patents are a wildly outdated concept. Red Hat sells only their support services, otherwise their software is completely free. Maybe you develop or pay someone for a really good DRM solution, which would still be doable, just if someone cracks it there is no legal action you can take except against the company for selling you crappy software if they promise it to last at least 6 months before being cracked. Maybe you setup a crowdfunding campaign/contract or a more private equivalent, so that if you do deliver the software you get paid (at which point you can take a loan against it to pay for bills in the meantime), or just straight up get paid before hand and be trusted on your delivery. Assurance contracts are a great way to incentive IP. There are plenty of solutions that already exist and there are bound to be solutions that are yet to be discovered. All of this would allow for full freedom of information if a certain technology is important enough for humanity. In fact, the industrial revolution was hampered for 18 years by steam engine patents. It wasn't until they went into Public Domain that the revolution kicked up.

Care to explain? So lets say we have a gene you want, that makes cells produce a given chemical. Lets say we test it on all the cell types of the intended recipient, to make sure the chemical in question isn't doing anything unintended. What do you think goes wrong? Is it wrong to enable a person to produce insulin? or is that playing God? Is it wrong to enable a bacteria to produce insulin for the said person? or is that playing God? Is it wrong to mass slaughter dogs, to harvest insulin for the said person? or is that playing God?

tbh I couldn't care less about god. This isn't about ethics either. It's just: we do so many thing wrong. What if the gene has some other effect we need to stay healthy? And once this gene is changed in a human and we noticed this mistake: it's already to late. Now this new gene defect can spread among humans. Do you know the fate of the Banana? Terribly small gene pool. Was nearly extinct once. If you use the same gene code for many humans with genetic defect you start to drain our own gene pool. Yes, one mutation wouldn't be so bad. But in the long run once parents have more control over their babies' genetic makeup this could become a huge problem. Just imagine there will be a trend to give babies a certain genetic modification to fit them to a certain ideal like let's say height. Many genes are involved in determening our height. Let's change them with a gene set a certain company sells. That just dramatically reduced the human gene pool. I know what you are thinking: Well let's just allow genetic modification to cure diseases! There are several reasons why this won't work. .... buut I really need to go to work now. ciao, have a nice day

Stefan S Yeah, because there is a single clearly defined type of ubermensch everyone strives to become, with blonde hair and blue eyes... ....don't be that stupid. What would stop people from going beyond "just fixing the most obvious problems"? I would wager that non negligible % of humans would be willing to give up their circulation system, as its one of the primary causes of death, and use something other than ribosomes to produce atp in their cells. Like a molecule that's excited by high frequency alternating current, to produce atp like chlorophyll does (if we can't use that molecule for this very task, which seems unlikely. Since most causes of death are related to the failure of this single organ. Its under pressure, when it ruptures you die, if the pumping fails, you die, if its gets clogged up by a bubble, or by a solid particle you die, if the piping is squeezed too much flow stops and you die, if anything interferes with its chemical makeup you die - and it can interfere easily since its circulated through your lungs all the time which are there to allow gas exchange... ...its the opposite of what i would call "intelligent design". Tl; Dr there is no such thing as a state of perfection, thus its idiotic to suppose that human gene pool will narrow down because we will approach it. (and the same argument could be made for genetic drift, thus following this logic all species should die out due to lack of genetic diversity, if they are adapting to the same enviroment for too long) Not to mention, the small fact, that if you can edit the genes, you don't have to hope for non-hindering mutations to randomly occur, like in banana. As you can create them. In my humble opinion you experienced to much dystopian fantasy (mislabeled as sc-fi)

lol

Just wait a couple of weeks to let it sink in, only then will you realise that it's not 2017.

PowerTrain if the creator is intelligent then the comments are intelligent,it works in almost any example you can think of

Welcome to 2018 mate

They just copy paste "wise comments" from 1781.

2021 is here

KibblyCheese Well then blame "dark greens", they were the ones who lobbied to ban the use of terminator genes, which would makes such legal options unecessary. But of course naysayers got their way, thus we have CRAZY legal requirements and bans on technologies, all of which make small to medium scale genetic modification an economic impossibility. Plus natural cross pollination does not create crops that have 90% genetic similarity to the patented ones. Selective breeding of cross pollinated seeds does. (From year to year selecting the seeds that are grown at the border with the field with that dirty GMO farmer, and sowing with those, instead of a random bunch you pick out of your harvest, which is intentful theft, not accident)

If you took your console, took it apart and then used your console as an example to build and sell other consoles, exactly like yours, you are distributing a patented product. It’s the same with the seeds. A seed could cost ten million to genetically modify. You buy one seed for a cent, and that seed produced 200 other seeds, all worth a cent. You plans those, and so on and so on, you’ll never need to buy seed again and Monsanto have just lost ten million dollars and years of research. You have the ability to replicate their product and distribute at a profit with relatively low input to a massive outcome. They want to stop you doing to and them losing money and so they make you sign this contract such as when you buy a console, you’re agreeing not to use the software to make more consoles.

Zeus Knobblewacker I understand why they are doing it, I'm just arguing that they are selling a product as if it is a service. If I owned the company I would do the same thing until somebody stopped me. I have an issue with Monsanto's business practices as a whole nonetheless especially as a consumer I believe once a product is sold, it should be yours to do with as you please (as long as you are not selling as if it is your own product(aka unauthorized distributor)) but unfortunately corn may have to be an exception to this belief by me because of how easily it reproduces

Just think of it as the farmer's paying them for the right to use their seeds instead of for the seeds themselves. It's just a contract between the farmer and the company.

KibblyCheese exactly. Read somewhere that it is basically a devil's deal. Once you are in it, you can't withdraw. They are serious about cross breeding and beneficial externalities.

Creating fire and highly complex research are are different

Mr. Kat Shouldn't be though.

Stfu

@@zylnexxd842 no

Also stupid, cures don't actually work like that, and there is more than one cure/treatment to every disease. So will the government give that billion to anyone who develops a new technique?

Well obviously I gave a simplified version here. I'm not smart enough to actually design the system. I was just repeating a solution that I had heard of on a health policy podcast. I assume any real implementation would have experts in the field deciding where to allocate rewards.

Mauricio Juanes they do because its system that provides two very important roles. It Both to promotes the free exchange of ideas, and still provides incentive to innovate. (Although some form of an overhaul could help make it better) Because basically with out patents people keep trade secrets, so until that secret is free (rather through discovery, charity, or spying) no one can use it. So patents make you disclose what your tech is and how it works. So people can then innovate on top of your innovation advancing the system. But this makes a problem, why should I innovate if when I invent something anyone can copy and distribute it. Making me pay the cost of all the R&D and logistics to develop it, without getting any incentive back. So to fix this patents give people the exclusive rights to their discovery up to 20 years. That there is incentive for me to develop. Because in those years I can get secured market share, and have a monopoly to recover all my R&D costs and make a profit. With out that ability then individuals and companies would have no reason to try and innovate.

Yes because the potential monetization incentivizes people to research BEFORE its developed. If they knew the product wouldn't have a chance at making money they probably wouldn't do it. Unless its public funded.

if I take a hammer and a screwdriver and tape them together, did I make a new tool?

But then the patent office need to protect against companies lying about R&D cost, making it much much higher than the actual cost

minecraft2048 Obviously. Im no expert in auditing or corporate compliance, so I cant say how difficult that would be.

Fuck yes.

That’s similar to how it works already. Other companies aren’t completely forbidden from using patents, they’re just required to pay a royalty.

Its called a Royalty stupid!

No it's called a compulsory licence "stupid". Also the way Axel described it does require a change in IP laws.

Having a Royalty sounds like a very good idea but who sets the amount ie 1% of sales price might not make it worth the investment unless its something that would be very high volume but 200% would start to make it prohibitively expensive for consumers like how many pharmaceuticals become so expensive. Also the term should be limited but again for how long?

Kristoffer Stahl Directions unclear. I now have my Johnson stuck in my toaster.

Kristoffer Stahl Well thanks! Will try it!

You are so welcome!

thanks bro

Sverre Munthe Monsanto seed can only be grow once. Seeds of gm crops are sterile. They even made sure cross breeding can never happen. So it doesn't spreads to other farms naturally.

The elephant in the room NOT mentioned is, once the patent expires they all got shit.

Krisna Adiyatno that actually happened?

jane doe the Asgard died off but the technology they gave to the humans was unusable because when ori could track it.