|
|
|
|
|
|
by jrkelly
4727 days ago
|
|
|
>This seems like the sort of thing that doesn't just have
>the potential to greatly stifle innovation Could you be more specific? I'm not sure how we'd be able to do our business (years of work to develop an engineered microbe) if someone could just take it when we're done. Maybe we could keep it as trade secret and let no one else see it, but that's probably even worse long term for innovation. I'm for a balanced approach to IP, but total removal of IP would basically prevent any real innovation in biotech with the tech of today. No one would do the original development, it's just way too expensive. |
|
|
Yes, sorry. I tend to only look at the long term where my personal version of a better society would be one where at least all the production of all the base needs (if not more) is automated and we have deprecated money.
Commercial development will need some sort of protection if it is to be profitable, of course. But there we can for instance directly say that these sorts of protective measures are not applied at all to non-commercial applications.
My thought of train is normally more rooted in the open source way of development, which I think will become more dominant in the next few decades. The resulting openness would enable more cooperation, even between similar projects. Something which is pretty much explicitly excluded in the competitive model.
IP might be needed for competitive development, but I think cooperative development bears much higher potential for innovation.
Sorry if this is a bit garbled intellectually, I'm in the process of picking up my stuff and heading home for the weekend.