[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
I was in Belper last week and went to see the museum, housed in a famous cotton mill. They had examples of the machines we all read about in school, viz the spinning jenny (Hargreaves), the water frame (Arkwright) and the mule (Crompton). On the wall behind the mule it said that Crompton did not take out a patent on his invention, thousands were made, the Industrial Revolution really took off and Crompton died in poverty. I take it that Hargreaves and Arkwright prospered. So inventors should be rewarded but not by restricting the application of the device. Patents inhibited development even in the 18th century and they work now only because firms spend huge sums looking for the cracks between existing patents. Eg tetracycline didn't last long before it was overtaken by chlortetracycline, which was a trivial variant. How to get the balance right though? Tony Sumner -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the message body to unsubscribe. FAQ: www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html