This being the core point, imo. Where rights = freedoms, freedom being required for creativity and creativity being required for innovation etc. etc.

http://blog.mises.org/13206/lets-just-s ... nd-patent/

"warned him not to release his free product because it would infringe on a legal monopoly"
"It further demonstrates how it would be possible to shut down the whole world using patent lawsuits. Folks, the criminals are in control of the law"

Re the uni assignment

23 pages of links to mises blog articles on patents
patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret horror files

One point i like: once an inventor/company has a patent, much of the incentive is removed for them to develop it further. e.g. Boulton and Watt had a patent for a steam engine, but they didn't do much other than overseeing assembly and collecting royalties until their patent expired, when they actually started making components themselves. (p 4-5 here)

An Article called "Smartphones Patented... Just About Everyone Sued 1 Minute After Patent Issued"

http://pc.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-business-leaders-should-care-about.html

IP showdown between Cato/Mises Institutes (anti IP libertarians) and the LibertariaNZ (pro IP libertarians)

for context, it was Mises blog that made me interested in helping start PPNZ. If it wasn't for their IP policy, i might have joined LibertariNZ.

"Big Pharma embraces "open innovation" trend to fix a broken R&D model"

http://www.masshightech.com/stories/2011/05/23/daily10-AstraZeneca-Biogen-look-externally-for-new-drug-candidates.html

haven't read it yet, but sounds like it might be relevant to a discussion point re PPSE's pharma patent policy.

Not really, by 'open innovation' they just mean finding external sources of ideas to patent rather than trying to do all the research themselves

".. the company will look to license patents, acquire smaller companies and collaborate with research partners. "

“We don’t have enough in the R&D pipeline so we’re looking outside,”

They might as well say "In the current patent-dominated environment, not enough R&D is happening"

Interesting point.

Speaking of which;


http://www.clearfoundation.com/Frequent ... tions.html

Glad to have you both catch up with policy discussed by our MEP in his blog a while ago. :D

I would suggest that for our future, we should employ more scientists in CRI's, and license their research to firms that will market (for example) new drugs in a more competitive manner, cheaper, better and faster to market.

"This report examines changes in the patenting behavior of the software industry since the 1990s. It finds that most software firms still do not patent, most software patents are obtained by a few large firms in the software industry or in other industries, and the risk of litigation from software patents continues to increase dramatically. Given these findings, it is hard to conclude that software patents have provided a net social benefit in the software industry. "
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1868979

US Patent Office Rejects Oracle's 17 Out Of 21 Android Claims
http://www.muktware.com/news/23/2011/1491