"In search of" is already up on torrent sites

[YellowFelix]

Well I would hate that it was patented, because patents seem to just be used to stifle innovation.  
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, patents help innovation.  Consider the pharmacuetical industry.  Company A goes through millions of manhours and expense to create a cure for cancer.  They do this to make a profit, it is not done out of the goodness of their hearts.  If they could not make a profit from all this expense (which by the way, they have no gaurantee that it will even work, they gamble in a sense that it will) they would find something else to do to make money.

Company A\'s creativity and expense is protected by say a 5 year patent.  After that time, the patent expires and Companies B through Z can manufacture generic versions of the drug.  

It is unlikely that the cure would have been found, without patent protection.  Not sure how this could apply to the music industry, but it would be nice if it could work this way as well.

[bhead51]

Well I would hate that it was patented, because patents seem to just be used to stifle innovation.  
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, patents help innovation.  Consider the pharmacuetical industry.  Company A goes through millions of manhours and expense to create a cure for cancer.  They do this to make a profit, it is not done out of the goodness of their hearts.  If they could not make a profit from all this expense (which by the way, they have no gaurantee that it will even work, they gamble in a sense that it will) they would find something else to do to make money.

Company A\'s creativity and expense is protected by say a 5 year patent.  After that time, the patent expires and Companies B through Z can manufacture generic versions of the drug.  

It is unlikely that the cure would have been found, without patent protection.  Not sure how this could apply to the music industry, but it would be nice if it could work this way as well.

The pharmaceutical companies\' research - and its base of biotechnology, neuroscience, etc.  - is mainly carried out by university departments and state agencies, paid for at public expense.  That is, the public absorbs the costs and risks, and the pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, etc. (who sit on the university board of trustees, along with State reps - usually heavily lobbied by their corporate allies, if they aren\'t former execs themselves) are handed the rewards, where the fruits are then offered to the public who pay a second time - the profits going to the wealthy.

The same deal for the development of computers, the Internet, telecommunications, etc.  All paid for by the public through the Pentagon system....

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19980506.htm
_________

The ownership of intellectual property, personal acclaim for innovation, and personal financial incentives have an ugly and unflattering legacy in the development of science.  To name one classic example, the "race" over the structure of DNA was slowed considerably as factions formed (Watson & Crick, Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind Franklin) and deliberately withheld research results, analysis, etc. from each other instead of working together.  In the end, Franklin was betrayed by Wilkins and her X-ray diffraction data leaked to Watson & Crick without her permission, which she refused to grant.  With more stringent protection rules, her crucial data would\'ve surely been kept secret, perhaps as a matter of law, as would\'ve much of the rest of the research being performed.

Whats more is the absurdity and ignorance of the belief that the incentives which drive those steeped in their discipline are driven not primarily by the deep fascination, curiosity, excitement, innovation, and so on that accompanies the prospect of curing disease for ailing people and the amazing workings of Nature which holds the keys - but are instead stimulated by the insatiable need for wealth, incentives which in reality turn out people like Dr. Reddy (see first link [Zmag] below).

All that is not to mention that Big Pharma in particular is one of the most morally bankrupt industries in the U.S. - in no small part due to its profit incentive.  That\'s a whole story of its own...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=108&ItemID=13287
http://www.counterpunch.org/vidal12072006.html
__________________________________________________

As a side, I see no response here to the differences in philosophy b/w Bill Gates and the free software community.  If the copyright corporations could have their way, they\'d completely remove the public communal development of software like Ubuntu Linux.  They\'re trying to do that and GPL3 will push the issue.  The ultimate threat would be the merging of hardware and software industries (in this case the law [under the pressure of public opinion] being the only thing forbidding such mergers).  If you apply "free market" principles and own the hardware and software technology, you can encode into the hardware the need for official sanction in order to run the software.  Perhaps the public shouldn\'t have the right to run a free software community.

How does Linux fair on viruses and spy-ware? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

Is Linux collecting user data? No.  Is Microsoft Vista?  Yes - and at unprecedented levels...
http://www.wannabegeek.org/content/view/64064/137

- bhead51

[coolwalking]

Haha, I knew it! A fellow Linux user.