Replies

There's no way basic science research could be done for free in today's high-tech world. Now what do propose?

I propose that your premise is absurd on its face, as witnessed by all the reasearch done at Intel, the biotech's, etc. And besides, what Edison did was just as difficult for his time as the challenges for today are for our time.

According to you, we should stop subsidizing science so only those who can generate income from their discoveries, like Edison, can continue. The problem is that kind of short-sighted thinking will eliminate our entire basic research program. Do you know the difference between basic research and applied research? Hint: Edison did not do basic research. Basic research does not generate "inventions" or products that can be sold for profit.

Intel, the Biotech's and other private technology-based companies do two kinds of 'research': applied research and development. They do applied research only when it can be expected to lead pretty directly to development.

As far as Thomas Edison and other 'scientists' are concerned, much if not all of what was done up until the last 50 years was at most applied research and mostly what would be called development today. Inventions are development, which in no way diminishes the brilliance of the inventor. And the difference between R&D then and now is not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of cost. Most R&D, including engineering and biotech research, is vastly more costly than it would have been in Edison's time.

There is definitely a place for American technical brilliance in industry. But it's imperative to maintain our dominance in scientific academia, as well.

Intel doesn't do ANY research... as a matter of corporate policy established at the founding of the company. It doesn't make sense to pay for research when you can buy what you need at below market rates... because of the massive subsidies from government, and because our intellectual property market functions have long been broken through a combination of neglect and the accumulated impact of too many lawyers over too much time.

If you want to re-energize innovation, all you need to do for a quick start... is fix what's broken with the patent system. That doesn't mean "conforming" to consensus opinion on international norms, either... it means structuring systems that encourage innovation because they can readily identify it, and because they enable that recognition rather than create obstacles to recognition.

Beyond that basic function, as long as a patent provides only a "right to sue" rather than some more basic legal property protection... so that patent infringement is a criminal offense of trespass pursued by the state, like breaking and entering, rather than a "civil" matter which pits individuals against the lawyers and $ of international conglomerates in legal battles... we'll get more of what we've got... which is a system which prevents recognition of accomplishment outside the corporate controlled market scheme that the patent office has become.

Microsoft would not survive in a world where theft of others ideas was considered serious... but it is that lack of serious concern for non-corporate IP use and ownership rights that is the problem.