> 20+ years and counting
I took a moment to search for Morales Tapia in Google Patents and could not find any matches. You do have an impressive resume, though.
> I don't see companies making the exact same argument the other way around, i.e. "hey I just made a PCR, this is a really cool technique, I should find out who invented this and send them money because they deserve to be rich".
Is PCR patented, or was it at some point? Companies constantly pay patent royalties for inventions that they want to use, whether the patent is held by an academic institution or not.
If the inventors of PCR wanted to receive royalties from it, patent law was there to help them achieve just that.
I truly don't understand how somebody who works in research isn't familiar with this process.
> You (not you-you, the generic you) want to be a dick and close down an open ecosystem of innovation where millions have contributed only to buy yourself a condo and some LEGO sets?
Ew.
Loud YES! And it only recently came off patent. This was really important for thermalcycler companies such as Bio-rad, which probably wouldn't be the name it is without those patents.
And it is not like patents prevent academics from doing research, either, as there are academic exceptions. In fact, the patent filing process forces the inventors to disclose how their invention works in detail, which makes it easier for academics to build on those ideas if they want to. It's only commercial applications that are really bound by IP licensing agreements, to my knowledge.
If you don't like it I couldn't care less :^).
Ctrl-F "IMO". No matches. Oops.
Ctrl-F "opinion". No matches. Oops.
And I'll leave this conversation here because neither of us is bothering to follow HN commenting guidelines at this point.
Good luck with your research and I hope that if you apply for a patent it will be granted sells well.
As much as I love boxing, I don't really sympathize with athletes smashing each other's heads in.
I really like capitalism but the benefit of some particular private companies and/or private individuals over others is of no real importance for me. I'm (almost) a free market absolutist.
Some regulation is needed to make things fairer, and actually better. But in my preferred mix of capitalism, patents wouldn't be a thing.
20+ years and counting.
>Do patent protections provide them an incentive to do that research?
The main incentive is money, patents are seen as a moat to that. (But a very weak one, tbh).
>What would be the logical consequence of removing that incentive?
On academia, the effect would be negligible. For some business it would matter, of course, but the immense majority of research is publicly funded anyway.
>I don't think I would have been paid to do all that research if my employers saw less returns for their investment.
As much as I like capitalism, I don't really sympathize with private companies and/or private individuals making money. I would never put their interests over the interests of what's good for society. But to each its own.
The argument of "why would I invest 1B in R&D to develop a drug that can be copied the next day it goes into the market" is valid only on a first, and very shallow, glance. That "1B drug" is actually a several trillion drug which was 99% subsidized by the work of researchers in public institutions. I don't see companies making the exact same argument the other way around, i.e. "hey I just made a PCR, this is a really cool technique, I should find out who invented this and send them money because they deserve to be rich". They're in for the money and if they don't make money, boo hoo, why should I care?
Richard Stallman had it right with the GPL, I wish something similar existed in science. You (not you-you, the generic you) want to be a dick and close down an open ecosystem of innovation where millions have contributed only to buy yourself a condo and some LEGO sets? Go for it! But do it on your own, with a tech tree that belongs to you.