[danssig]

We do need to pursue it, but a short-term oriented market based system just can't do it. There is too much financial risk in the kind of research that needs to be done. And if you do ever manage to produce anything, everyone else can just copy it. So the best strategy in the market will always be to not spend anything on research and just steal from those who do.

[khafra]

Is there a solution to this multiplayer prisoner's dilemma/coordination problem besides government-run research labs? I've never heard one.

[orborde]

Patents are the solution our society seems to have chosen. I don't know whether they're "the" solution.

[zwieback]

Yes and no. HP, for example, invests a lot of R&D money in the core businesses and not everyone can just copy what we do and even though quarterly reports rule there are 5 year plans for things other than off-the-shelf consumer products. On the other hand, the D of R&D is heavily emphasized and HP Labs has been struggling to be relevant to the business units as long as I can remember. The question for blue chips is whether it's cheaper to fund your own research or wait until something is mature to the point where you can buy or license it. Much as it dismays me sometimes, it really isn't such an unreasonable strategy for the average stockholder who owns us.

[olalonde]

> but a short-term oriented market based system just can't do it

How can you know for sure? There is no such thing as a free market system in the United States. The incentive for private research is very low when all companies have to do is wait for subsidized research coming out of universities.