🚀 go-pugleaf

In the referenced article, geyer@aylmer.uchicago.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
> In article <8996@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase)
> writes:
> 
> >  c) but -- there should be some reward for being first and being
> >     public about a useful discovery.
> 
> Well perhaps there should be in the form of recognition, fame, tenure,
> promotions, prizes and so forth.  But why should there be *patents*?
> Why should the reward be a government granted monopoly to screw the
> public?
> 
> Such monopolies aren't granted for discoveries in physics or chemistry.

You *are* kidding, right?  I was talking with my friend Russell Brand
the other day, mentioning that I had a cousin who worked in the
Organic Chemistry section of the Patent Office as an examiner, and
Russell remarked, "You know, to a first approximation, the Organic
Chemistry section *is* the Patent Office."

The largest number of patent applications are, in fact, for "discoveries in
chemistry" -- new materials and substances, new and unique methods of
processing and synthesizing substances, and "new applications" of
known chemical substances to processes and tasks.  This is where
the real money is -- pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, 
food chemistry, petroleum, plant/agriculture chemistry... you name it.
Discoveries in the biological sciences are also a fertile field for patent
claims.  (The firm I work for is heavily involved in this area, and
among other things provides access to an online database of patented
DNA sequences.)

And with reference to physics -- agreed, there are probably not that
many patent opportunities in certain disciplines like cosmology, but
there sure are in material science, nuclear chemistry, fission/fusion
research, weapons physics, and the like, which represent many more
working physicists than those who work in purely theoretical areas.

--
Michael C. Berch  
mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb