Re: [Free-sklyarov-uk] Re: [DMCA_Discuss] Re: [Patents] IT World Feature: Patently ridiculous: What's Europe to do?

[Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>]

>Research project funded by the public and after patented is not for
>the general interest of the public.

Not necessarily true.  The US government passed a law allowing companies
to get exclusive marketing rights to public funded research because in
some cases it was in the best interests of the public.  It takes a lot
of money to turn R&D into a commercially available product - product
packaging, market testing, etc.  However, why should company A spend
such monies if company B can wait until company A has spent such monies,
learn from what company A did without having to spend the money, and
then start selling the product as well, often at a cheaper price than

company A because company B doesn't have to spend the initial monies?
Well, in many cases, company A (or any other company) would spend the
money, and seek some other product to invest in, unless company A can
get some sort of exclusive license.

So in some cases, it is in the public's interest to allow publicly
funded R&D to be patented or be granted exclusive licenses, which is
why laws were passed in the US (and now being considered in Europe).
Not to say that such laws can't be abused in some cases (like all
other laws), but that is an excuse to fix the law.

In other cases, it is best to put the research into the public with no
restraints.  It seems to me better for the public to have laws that
allow both options, to be used on a case-by-case basis.

Greg Aharonian