Subject: Re: GIF/LZW patent
From: DV Henkel-Wallace <gumby@henkel-wallace.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 10:15:55 -0700

Chris, I'm not sure I can agree with you, and I say this as someone  
filing and working around existing pharma patents.  There is some  
scope creep I suppose but nowhere near what you describe.

We _are_ avoiding interesting and potentially valuable therapies just  
because we don't want to deal with the rats-nest of patents in each  
of them, but that's the way the patent system is supposed to work.   
instead we concentrate where others are not.  Sorry, dude, if  you  
develop angina, but anyway it makes for a better business plan.

I think the patronage/research lab structure is more due to high  
costs (not high capital cost, but operating: one of my instruments  
costs me about $1500 in consumables to run overnight, and I have  
three running full tilt).  Those factors don't apply in the software  
field, which has gotten way out of whack.


On Sep 26, 2006, at 22:45 , Chris DiBona wrote:

> In pharma, patents have been so overused (along
> with vast regularoty compliance cost) to stifle the industry into a
> patronage/research lab structure.