Right now manufactorers are trying to move to 22nand chips for low heat, low power requirements.

Otherwise 45nand and up works well.

Why do I make that an example?

Because all of those companies compete at those sizes.

Yes some have infra more than others... few would argue that AMD has much less Infra than Intel.

The point I was making however is that science ends when you can copy someone elses science.

Even if an innovation cost 5% of the value of the infra... or even 1%... this represents a loss when anyone with equal infra can copy it and get it out in a similar time span.

See current chip tech relies upon wafers. Wafers are divided into many spaces to make individual chips. Etching and/or other proccesses are used to actually make the transistors that make up each individual chip.

All of these companies have the ability to do this.

So if two companies have exactly the same output of chips... call it 100k per a given time period...

And company B foolishly spends an amount equal in cost to 1k... to do research... while Company A merely copies the new tech.

Company B is losing the war now... it has to lose profit and/or charge higher prices.

Innovation becomes a drain.

I agree with you Flint, in fact I think I mentioned that in the above post...my point was, innovation doesn't stop, it just becomes less profitable, less motivation, less security, etc.

"And company B foolishly spends an amount equal in cost to 1k... to do research... while Company A merely copies the new tech."

Company B still enjoys a headstart. All research would be under heavy security, so Company B enjoys a larger market share from the start. This is what I meant by company image. If Company B now has a reputation for being the leader in technology, even if Company A follows suit...I am sure that R&D will be a portion of the profits in ANY case, so you take away protection it just means less investment (fewer innovations)...I by no means support such a change, but my argument is that in many cases, the manufactoring side of it plays a bigger part than R&D, and also in a more competative market, marketing plays a bigger factor (brand image and such...so in the CPU industry, pretty sure consistant innovation would help build brand imaging and give them a much larger share of the market)

I agree with your view that no protection of IP is bad, I am merely quibbling over the extreme of your examples...

"Technology has made it so you can copy a chip I less than a day."

You are talking about chips that are just improvements? or actual innovation? Furthermore, I question the timeframe also...a day to reverse engineer and setup production to copy it? Seriously? If so, source please...

"If I can then build a factory for 1/2 the cost that they did... I would crush them."

You still need to invest money into reverse engineering the item, and just the workings of the device doesnt mean that they know how to manufactor it...to setup the factory certainly takes time (this whole time, HP has been improving their manufactoring through funds coming in from their sales of the new product). So when IBM enter the market, HP already has the advantage, and even dispite being able to produce cheaper from the original product, HP has been able to streamline production...

Example, and I will take it from the SAME field...the first microchip originally cost $1000 per chip in 1960 to make (and from memory it was only 1 transistor circuits) to $25 per chip in 1963 (and from memory was up to like 7 transisters per circuit) (also, I think this is the reference, but they have banned nobel.org in China, so I can't open it to check http://nobelprize.org/educational/physics/integrated_circuit/history/ [I did a research project on integrated circuits])...

Now, in that time, another company would need to reverse engineer (they would need to reverse engineer everything), setup a factory, setup distribution channels/marketing, in this time the other company has continued to innovate...also quality needs to come into this as well...

Let's take a look at Plasma/LCD tv's, when production first started, the number of dead cells in screen was rather high (thus leading to a lot of wastage and high prices). A new company trying to reverse engineer this would not know this information, nor would it have the appropriate R&D to compensate effectively. Whilst they are reverse engineering/setting up manufactoring the other company is improving their production methods (giving further lead on the competition)...

In your example above, the entire chip would need to be reverse engineered, which would take time, and IBM would not have the manufactoring capabilities to create atmospheric chips...this gives the original creator more time to improve on manufactoring techniques...

In fact, the IT industry is probably the worst example, since it naturally evolves so quickly that manufactoring needs to be updated constantly also, actually giving a disadvantage over someone "copying" the product....

And smart phones, well that would go back to an argument over marketing (I mean the iPhone4 was originally terrible [coverage issues, poor battery life] but BRAND IMAGE meant people rushed out and bought it the MOMENT it was released)...

The only argument you could make, is that a company then just calls themselves "Apple" makes the IDENTICAL product and sinks as much money in their store designs (are we really gonna bring Trademarks into this...I guess they would also go, but still think Trademarks is going too far)...the competition would also still be behind Apple, who would gain market share as the product was released...when competition comes in, it can afford to lower its costs then to be competitive (since it would have racked in so much on release)...price sometimes means less to people than "brand name", take Guchi, Vitton, and every other designer product, I do not see them going out of business from the flood of cheap knockoffs...brand image is more powerful than you think, and the first to release is able to gain market share quickly (and think about this, do you hear people brag more about their "awesome quad-core, liquid cooled, with a 2GB graphics card" or say "well I went with the cheaper option of AMD over Intel and saved a whole $20")...

All of them

i think the transistor came a little later than 1960

And I think you're free to use as many patented applications in a new device as you like, you just have to pay for the use.  That's the point of a patent, it gives you the right to earn from the use of a thing.

There are standards based patents where you have to share but can get license fees.

Then there are normal patents which no one can use without your express permission.

/ignore

"People would still invent, still solve problems."

You have yet to explain why this would be the case...there have been many cases brought forward that are simply ignored, yet they do point out that innovation simply doesn't just occur...

"It wouldn't hurt them any."

Yes, it does...as stated above, and numerous times, it hurts the companies that invest in R&D. It comes down to risk, and without protection, risk is GREATER, yes? That is simple economics right there, and when risk is lower, more people are willing to invest (which leads to more R&D projects). It is THAT simple. You have yet to explain how risk would be lower, or how companies/individuals would counter higher risk.

"i think the transistor came a little later than 1960"

The first Integrated circuit (transistor, resistor, capicitor) to use silicon was created in 1958 (or was it 1959, I forget) by Robert Noyce. It's first application was the minuteman missiles and the apollo projects...1960 was when the first Integrated Circuits were first produced for use.

I am ignoring Xeno

As for you

Some standards are out there, 501g for wifi is such a standard.

To use the standard you merely need create a unit that transmits/recieves to the specific standard.

The actual design itself of your unit can receive a design patent which prevents a complete ripoff. Also what can be patented is specific components that pass a pair of standards known as "unique" and "not obvious".

So like I make a chip that use germanium only that could be patentable. A chip based on 486 technologies using a standard silicon base could not.

Your not supposed to do a copy of other peoples works in design patents, including the guts... to a certain extent. If I just completely copied your guts but put a new frame on it I would be infringing.

Standards patents are unique. You can apply for one, but it does not guarantee acceptance by industry. You are supposed to have a uniform license fee of sorts as well.

Music, books, some software, and video falls under copyright.

The same basis for print as Patents for production. Personal use is different. In this case it would be like me going to a General Motors factory and taking a vehicle from the lot. "You have enough profit" is the typical infringer excuse. However despite the fact you may not ever be willing to buy their product, or whatever your excuse... your using their product without their permission.

That is the main basis of copyrights.

Just imagine if this proposal of Xeno's had happened after Windows 3.1 but before Windows 95... Microsoft would have dumped any future developement (expensive to keep programmers programming) and we would not have any of the software we enjoy now.

"If companies make less money, where does the money for R&D come from?"

The R&D comes from a people who are solving their problems.  They don't invent to make money, but to solve a problem they are facing.  Take for example a mining company trying to find a new, better way to extract minerals.  They would develop the new technology and implement it.  They would probably keep it secret to maintain their competitive advantage.  Eventually, though, other companies would figure it out themselves, too.  During the period before other companies figure it out, the company can enjoy their competitive advantage.

The fact of the matter is that companies, once developing a new system keep it secret anyway, because they know other companies ignore copyright / patent laws and would simply steal their system / new technology regardless.

This is why patent laws and IP laws are redundant.  Their effect on society is negative overall.

""a system that encourages innovation"

I have been arguing all along that the current system does not encourage innovation; it has failed."

"They would probably keep it secret to maintain their competitive advantage."

"In effect, by preventing the innovation necessary to solve the pressing problems humanity is facing (global warming, nuclear proliferation, the fact that we have not colonized other planets and therefore have human beings all on one planet and thus have had to keep all humanity's eggs in one basket) is a crime against humanity, keeping us all in a position whereby we could all easily be wiped out by our own stupidity or random stroke of cosmic fate."

"What part of this argument have I not clearly presented?"

Mostly your own words based on an argument made by me. Patents are there to help put inventions out there for people to ACTUALLY use. You are advocating a system that keeps innovation secret (in order to reduce the risk, which is what I am referring too). Furthermore, your premise that companies will keep things secret can't work in a consumer's market, which is where most of the arguments FOR patents come into play.

"The R&D comes from a people who are solving their problems."

See, not everything involves a personal problem. Take pharmaceuticals for example, if we leave it to those who want to solve "personal" problems, anything with a fast killing rate won't leave many people to tackle that on a personal level (nor could they really fund since they would be dead). Things like the television wouldn't have been a "solution" to a problem would it? Fashion, isn't solving any problems...that includes jewelry...also, your example is about internal innovation (ie. it helps them directly, and sure, that will always happen in any case), but what about innovating a brand new car that lowers emissions and gets more miles per gallon? Can't exactly keep that secret and sell it to the public at the same time. So who then would want to invest the money to come up with that since there is a high likelihood they will not get that money back? A car company? Then their competitors will steal the technology. The consumer? Do they really have enough money to engineer the materials needed? I think you got it right that people will be only interested in solving their own problems, and in order to gain something from it, keep it secret which works AGAINST what you are trying to achieve.

"The fact of the matter is that companies, once developing a new system keep it secret anyway, because they know other companies ignore copyright / patent laws and would simply steal their system / new technology regardless."

Examples?

"This is why patent laws and IP laws are redundant.  Their effect on society is negative overall."

You made a blank example and used that to explain why. Also, if companies just copy things anyway, how can they be creating monopolies? (or did they copy the game Monopoly?). Or are some fields nothing more than competitors cheating each other, and others just monopolies? Also, if people are stealing others ideas, why abolish laws to prevent that?

Honestly, this is what I have taken from your arguments so far (and trying to make this simple):
1) Holding back humanity from innovation is the greatest crime against humanity
- For me, I think the worst thing in the world is arrogance, it actually irritates me. I am not accusing you, I am just pointing out that because you feel that holding back innovation is the greatest crime, doesn't make it true. Furthermore, you mentioned that under a no-patent system, companies will be inclined to keep things secret, so are they also the worst criminals in the world?

2) Patent/copyright laws should be abolished because they create monopolies and prevent us from innovating further
- "They would probably keep it secret to maintain their competitive advantage.": doesn't that mean that the improvement can't be improved upon further. Patent laws I believe allow improvements on previous designs actually, and certainly don't limit another inventor coming up with a DIFFERENT solution to the same problem (and making that solution more profitable too)

3) Patent/copyright laws are redudant anyway, because people steal ideas anyway
- Kind of advocating their need. There needs to be incentive to innovate (people don't just wake up one day and say "gee, I might invent something today because I am in an inventing kind of mood), so to solve problems is one yes (which exists under patents and without patents, but as Zarf just pointed out, a patent means people actually know about it, and the other is kept secret), another is money (which you keep rejecting, but it IS a motivator), and the only other example I can think of this late is a crazy old guy who drives a Dolorian with a flux capacitor. Just because someone comes up with an answer, a patent doesn't prevent them with coming up with a different answer (but hey, they COULD use the other idea to work out HOW they solved the problem and then change the way they achieve that). Innovation is sped up when people release ideas, which happens everytime a patent is applied for, without patents people will keep it secret to maintain their competative edge (which you also mentioned).

--Have I missed any other points?--

"You are advocating a system that keeps innovation secret "

"keep it secret which works AGAINST what you are trying to achieve"

Overall, more people than fewer would make their discoveries readily available to others and wouldn't keep it secret / sell patent rights to it, especially those discoveries whose applications would provide many benefits to people's lives.  Even those companies who would try and keep their discoveries a secret for a period wouldn't be able to do so for very long, and, secondly, it would be widely known that such a discovery were possible, and there would be plenty of further research by the other companies to discover it for themselves and thereby negate the competitive advantage the first company had.

"if companies just copy things anyway, how can they be creating monopolies?"

I am getting tired of your incessant devil's advocacy.  I am not interested in discussing things with people who more interested i stroking their egos rather than seeking the truth.  Companies within highly regulated and controlled nations which operate where companies generally adhere to copyright / patent laws (like the US, for example) tend to form monopolies, whereas in more free-market style economies where copyright and patent laws are not adhered to (like China) there tends to be more competition.