I just wonder why simple things never being explained even to educated folks.
1. Patent doesn't mean NOBODY can use it. In fact they mean right opposite to it: patent mean everybody can use it for the fee or royalty. Patent-holder actually happy if somebody uses it and pays for it.
It's a lie that prices higher than it should be. It's a lie that you can't do incremental invention, based on other patents, you can and honestly lawyer must know that you can gain benefits regarding rights to use parental patent when you got sub-patent based on it.
2. As a Marxist you think about gain from the intellectual property, from the perspective of it's cost to create. This is wrong. You should look at it from the perspective of how important it is. And based on price voluntarily paid for patents - it is very important.
3. Even if you are a Marxist, when you consider IP cost, take into account that this cost multiplied by the factor of failed projects needed to get this one success.
no subject
1. Patent doesn't mean NOBODY can use it. In fact they mean right opposite to it: patent mean everybody can use it for the fee or royalty.
Patent-holder actually happy if somebody uses it and pays for it.
It's a lie that prices higher than it should be.
It's a lie that you can't do incremental invention, based on other patents, you can and honestly lawyer must know that you can gain benefits regarding rights to use parental patent when you got sub-patent based on it.
2. As a Marxist you think about gain from the intellectual property, from the perspective of it's cost to create.
This is wrong. You should look at it from the perspective of how important it is.
And based on price voluntarily paid for patents - it is very important.
3. Even if you are a Marxist, when you consider IP cost, take into account that this cost multiplied by the factor of failed projects needed to get this one success.