No offense, but what kind of crap hardware are you running in your machine??? I have never had an issue with that, and yes, i have had multiple writes from DL's at one time, simultaneously running database back up and retrieval here at work. If your HDD is struggling with writing several files at once, it sounds like a hardware issue.
U.S. Shuts Down Megaupload
- Thread starter $CASH$
- Start date
Since you are really talking about patents. I agree they have been misused in our society, but at the same the do serve a purpose and eliminating them entirely would be detrimental to our society as well.
In situations where there is an extremely high R&D cost to bring a new technology to market it is important to have patents otherwise we are creating an environment where it is much more advantageous to be second to market. If it costs 100 Million to create some new type of immunotherapy cancer treatment for example, but everyone in the industry can just use the technology once it has been developed, then all the parties will be waiting for someone else to spend the 100 million so they can just steal the technology and profit without the large investment in R&D.
In that case we have we have created a progression stalemate as each person is waiting for the other to develop the technology.
The current system is not perfect and it would be better for the consumer if for example anyone could use a new technology but the originator of the technology was paid a standard royalty based on the industry and amount of R&D invested.
Just as there are therapies that cost 100 million to develop, there are also therapies that are not at all developed because the companies have decided it is not profitable to do so. There are many examples.
Most of those costs are for clinical trials not for the actual R&D. And just as there are large companies developing therapies, there are also lots of small individual labs who do that kind of work and lots of highly motivated people work in them. I see no reason why the drug and therapy R&D has to be the function of big pharma.
Most of those costs are for clinical trials not for the actual R&D. And just as there are large companies developing therapies, there are also lots of small individual labs who do that kind of work and lots of highly motivated people work in them. I see no reason why the drug and therapy R&D has to be the function of big pharma.
Immunotherapy was one example, don't get caught up arguing the specifics and miss the point; why would Ford invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a completely new engine technology if they knew GM could utilize it for free once it was developed? Second most of the costs for immunotherapy cancer treatments are not for clinical trials, although the FDA does require an exhaustive amount of trials before a drug might be approved. However the development off such drugs requires investing in highly specialized equipment, factories, and supply chains after the drug has been approved, not to mention the risk involved in paying for all that stuff only to have the FDA deny the application.
I don't really see what your argument is because even if the cost was driven entirely by clinical trials (which it is not) the original argument still remains. It doesn't make sense for the first company to shoulder all the costs associated with clinical trials when the second company can use the same technology without the cost.
It doesn't have to be big pharma and I never said it had to be, but in our current system and even if were to change, someone has to shoulder the enormous costs of developing a new drug. Right now that is done by big pharma predominantly on a profitability scale which doesn't necessarily lead to the best results for medical advancement. However, unless you are suggesting the government should be in charge of and fund all medical development then there needs to be some protection for the company bringing the technology to market, or the progression of medical advancement will stall.
Because for the most part profit IS the motivation. Most inventors truly love what they do…but they also want to try and make a decent living doing it. I get what you’re saying, but that isn’t the world we live in. It would be nice to live in a world where nothing came at a cost and we all just gave stuff away for free…but we don’t.
EVERYTHING that we use in our daily lives comes at a cost, and someone makes a profit…intellectual property is no different. Don’t think of patents, copyrights, etc. as ideas, they are products. Just like Nike sells shoes, companies and inventors sell their IP.
EVERYTHING that we use in our daily lives comes at a cost, and someone makes a profit…intellectual property is no different. Don’t think of patents, copyrights, etc. as ideas, they are products. Just like Nike sells shoes, companies and inventors sell their IP.
I sort of hinted to this in my first post, but yes, it is extremely difficult. It costs 10’s of thousands of dollars just to get a patent. My company deals with many who can’t afford to prosecute their own patents. If we like their idea, we take on the cost of prosecution and get a cut if we sell or license it. We also acquire patents from small companies who don’t really know what to do with what they have, or want to take on the monetary task of maintaining and marketing them. It’s an interesting field for sure.
Just because Xerox or some other company sits on an idea, it doesn’t mean thousands of others are. I don’t think you realize how many people and small businesses rely on their IP to make a decent living. It is anything but pointless.
Just because Xerox or some other company sits on an idea, it doesn’t mean thousands of others are. I don’t think you realize how many people and small businesses rely on their IP to make a decent living. It is anything but pointless.