We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Ain’t nationalisation great! First time is happenstance, second is coincidence and third is enemy action. As it happens Bolivia has a third natural resource which, currently, is in high demand. Lithium. Those salt flats up at 12,000 feet and so on. One of the great deposits of easily extractable lithium they are. So, why aren’t they being extracted?
Because the government has insisted that they’re a great natural resource. Therefore, rather than greedy capitalists extracting and shipping out those batteries should be made up at 12,000 feet. Even, in fact, the cars that use the batteries.
The result is obvious – the lithium isn’t being extracted, the batteries aren’t being made and nor are the cars. Because idiot fuckwits are in charge of what happens to Bolivia’s natural resources of course.
– Tim Worstall
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I missed the part where Bolivia is supposed to do things your way
What do you think “your way” is? Like maybe efficiently extract & actually sell the damn resources for a profit?
The socialist-populist-nut ex (and maybe future) President Evo Morales has decreed that the lithium shall be extracted by Bolivia’s government mining company Comibol. That was maybe 5-6 years ago at least. No lithium has been produced so far.
By the way: the biggest tin magnate of Bolivia, Simon Patino was a native (Indian). His mines have been nationalized in 1952 (along with the mines of Arramayo and Hochschield)
Of course, Bolivia as a nation is free to go their own way and remain a country where the GNI per capita is just $10 per day. Alternatively, they are also free to make out like bandits and start capitalising on their natural resources like the Norwegians do (GNI per capita = $350 per day).
I wonder which side would win out if the question were put to a referendum?
If you took every ounce of lithium in Bolivia and threatened to force feed me it, I STILL wouldn’t touch a milk float!
There’s another way of looking at this. How much less would my next laptop cost? And, more to the point, how much more likely am I to get a Bolivian client. Somebody please save us from the idea of economics as a zero-sum game.
Let’s be clear, the problem is not the plan to build batteries, the plan is government unable to find its ass with two hands.
The idea of taking advantage of this windfall to try to pull Boliva up from a place to dig stuff out of the ground, to having an industrial base, is really a good one. The problem is the usual idea of central planning. If they allowed expert mining companies to come in and sponsored battery manufacturing companies to build factories they could probably make the plan work. The problem is that they need to be in control of everything, and people who go into government usually do so because they have no other measurable skills. And somehow they think they are capable of running these sorts of enterprises.
I think they are in danger of missing the boat. There is a big push in the battery industry to get away from Lithium because of the horrific destruction its mines cause and the extreme fire danger. I read a few papers recently about Sodium ion batteries which function similarly to Lithium, though have lower energy densities, but the trade offs may well eventually favor this, and there is a lot of sodium freely available in that country called “the ocean”. I could easily imagine, for example, an offshore windfarm producing not electricity but metallic sodium. And there is so much money available in battery tech right now that there is a huge amount of research going on. There are no doubt many othe technologies being cooked up in secret labs everywhere.
@Mark
If you took every ounce of lithium in Bolivia and threatened to force feed me it, I STILL wouldn’t touch a milk float!
You are welcome to chose an ICE over an electric car, but to dismiss them as milk floats is not fair at all. Modern electric cars are marvels of engineering. Tesla in particular is entirely iconoclastic in their design, having largely thrown out a hundred years of design and completely rethinking the whole idea of what a car is. As an engineer I find their design, their design process and their manufacturing process a true modern wonder. I’m an engineer. I love engineering, it is the pinnacle of human achievement. And what Musk and his team do in engineering design isn’t just next level, it is ten levels up. And that he does it in the USA is a miracle in these days when America has largely conceded engineering to China (and to a lesser extent to Japan and Korea.)
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Musk is the most significant human alive today.
Bolivia has the right idea, although clearly bad execution. Historically, exporting raw materials has often resulted in making the exporter poor and the importer rich. You can only sell the stuff nature left you once, but you can sell productive skills over and over.
For example, southern and Indian cotton gave New Hampshire and Lancashire a whole industrial base.
There is a myth in Latin America that private ownership means foreign ownership – the history of Bolivia refutes that myth, as the land, including the Tin Mines, was under the ownership of Bolivians.
Sadly lunatic governments confiscated everything they could their lunatic claws on – and made Bolivia the poorest country in Latin America.
As for battery driven cars – no disrespect to Elon Musk (a fine man), but the idea does not really make much sense, at least not for the mass market.
Fraser Orr, at 3:25pm, “There are no doubt many other technologies being cooked up in secret labs everywhere.”
And in not-so-secret labs: many of the US national labs have large battery R&D groups (200 people at one lab that employs ~6000 overall).
One of the groups I’m familiar with holds their group meetings in Chinese (Mandarin? Cantonese? I dunno). I’m not making that up! Unfortunately.
So, the US taxpayer is (again!) paying for intellectual property development which is being stolen by China faster than you can say “re-patriate the postdocs!”
@Fraser Orr
I would dearly love to be left alone with my petrol cars and if you want a milk float, well good for you. Alas, this is not the case.
The sale of new real cars will be banned (if you believe they can actually do it of course) from 2030. If I were to go into a dealer tomorrow to buy one, there is a very good chance I would be told I couldn’t until the new year because the dealer would not want to be fined. Milk floats obviously flying off the forecourts (can teslas do that as well?)
Yes, I know I could get a second hand one, but at a higher price than a year ago I’ve no doubt. I could pay the more if I have to, but there are many on the lower end of the pay scale who depend on their cars who are starting to struggle.
You’re quite right, its not fair to refer to them as milk floats. Milk floats were, after all, a very good solution to a definite problem (noisy vans early in the morning or clattering horses!)
I’d be fascinated to know how exactly Tesla has “largely thrown out a hundred years of design and completely rethought the whole idea of what a car is”
I really would!
@GregWA
So, the US taxpayer is (again!) paying for intellectual property development which is being stolen by China faster than you can say “re-patriate the postdocs!”
In the current legal environment you might be right, but I think patents are extremely damaging to innovation, and so I actually don’t care too much about this. The more people who know about these technologies the more competition we can generate to get better products. There may well be legal impediments to that but those impediments should be the target of reform. And as to those post-docs? Perhaps if American companies were willing to pay these guys/gals in some measure according to the value they bring then they might well prefer San Jose to Shanghai.
And, FWIW, in an area of technology where there is SO much immediate profit available it is absolutely insane that the government is funding research into it. Let private companies and private equity investors do it. Let them use their first move advantage and capital investment, both physical and human, to bring products to a market that is parched with thirst for new ideas. This is harder because the total mess the US government has made which makes “making things in America” so hard, and has put us at great disadvantage to the orient. It’ll take us decades to catch up even if DOGE cleans up the mess. Something that a LOT of people don’t understand is that people ship manufacturing to China not because it is cheap but because the Chinese are generally much better at engineering than we are. Which is, to say the least, embarrassing.
I used to run a company that manufactured small consumer electronics, and the difference in working with an American manufacturer and a Chinese one is dramatically in favor of China. FFS they can manufacture and ship by ocean container in half the time it takes to get it done in Georgia or Texas. And it costs half the price. This isn’t China’s fault. It is America’s fault.
@Mark, for sure, I agree that the government’s vendetta against ICE cars is stupid, counter productive and I hate all the politics around it. I love a great car with a manual transmission and a turbo charged V8. My biggest complaint with driving an EV is that you don’t get to change gear. However, my complaint is overcome when I hit the go button on a Tesla X, and feel myself pressed into the seat as it goes 0-60 faster than the very fastest supercars. If you haven’t done it and you love cars, you need to. At least once, before you die.
My complaint is your characterization of electric vehicles as milk floats. The comparison is so stupid and unfair that I can’t let is pass without comment. It’s like calling the Mona Lisa a fingerpainting. Modern EVs are absolutely beautiful machines, works of engineering art akin to the very best machines mankind has ever build. And it makes me cringe to hear you allow your politics cause you speak so irreverently of them.
@Fraser Orr
If you have a tesla (I assume you have) and you put your foot down, it goes like stink.
So it should with a 100% torque instantly available electric motor (probably one of the most versatile and useful things ever invented. An electric motor is far superior to an internal combustion engine, that is undeniable).
But why cripple it with half a ton or whatever of an abomination of a battery? Even if that battery was the size of a matchbox, cost pennies and could hold enough energy to get to Neptune (don’t hold your breath), it has to be charged, and therein lies the rub.
Battery only is a political decision, not an engineering one (and it is supposed to be battery only don’t forget). The engineering decision was taken well over a hundred years ago, and pure battery cars were found severely wanting. That deficiency is still essentially the same and can’t be solved by any imaginable battery technology (hence the political coercion). All talk of unicorn battery technologies is really just gaslighting.
The power infrastructure necessary to replace every internal combustion engined vehicle with an electric one is a ridiculously unattainable fantasy (and Cliff alone knows what it would actually cost!)
And if the answer is fewer cars, fewer journeys, less mobility. Well that again is politics (there is a thread here!) As an engineer you surely should be looking to improve mobility?
An EV a work of engineering art?
Well, your engineering aesthetic, if I can put it that way, is clearly somewhat different to mine (yes, I’m an engineer and have spent over 40 years in the aerospace industry)
I’ve never driven a milk float, or even been a passenger in one.
So apart from doubtless impressive acceleration and fulsome adventures when I need to charge it away from the driveway I don’t have, what am I actually missing?
If you were a salesman and you tried your last couple of posts as a sales pitch for milk floats, I doubt if you would get many takers.
How many milk floats are actually bought by private buyers with their own money, people actually willing to part with their own money.
Does anybody know? (is there anybody put there in the trade?)
@Mark
If you have a tesla (I assume you have)
Nope. Not an owner, just a fan.
and you put your foot down, it goes like stink.
So nothing like a milk float. Unless milkmen do things very differently where you live?
I’m not so much advocating for electric cars, though I do think they are a better solution in many circumstances, including the circumstances most car users find themselves in. But I am saying your characterization of them as milk floats is both sophomoric and meritless. All good engineers recognize that one solution does not fit all needs. I think, for example and in your domain, the push for electric aircraft is nothing short of barmy. I guess though there is lots of government money for people willing to try knowing that failure is not only an option but an inevitability.
“I missed the part where Bolivia is supposed to do things your way”
Bolivia cannot do anything in any way. It is not a living conscious creature that can make decisions. It is inanimate.
@Frazer Orr
“your characterization of them as milk floats is both sophomoric and meritless”
In my specific case, it’s an absolutely correct characterisation because a milk float would be as much use to me as – well – an actual milk float. A battery electric car for my usage and circumstances would be simply unusable. End of!
And there are millions who are clearly in exactly the same boat as myself.
Are you going to buy one?
If so when, if not why? (I don’t that’s an unreasonable thing to ask)
We have internal combustion engine cars, vans, lorries (which includes hybrids don’t forget) for the overwhelming bulk of our private and public road transport needs. That’s it at present.
Talk all you want about hydrogen or anything else, but these are not practical solutions as yet (and it’s not clear what else currently will be of medium to long term utility. Whatever happens, the internal combustion engine will be around for decades).
In the case of the road vehicles above, one solution – the petrol or diesel engine pretty well DOES fit all (because its more or less all we have at the moment. And it is so because nothing to date had even managed to come remotely close), and the only alternative that been tried in the real world (hardly successfully I would most definitely posit) is the battery milk float.
Under what circumstances is a milk float a better solution than a petrol/diesel car for – as you clearly stated – most users? (including yourself)
Mark
In my specific case, it’s an absolutely correct characterisation because a milk float would be as much use to me as – well – an actual milk float.
I’m sorry, you aren’t being completely honest. Why not call them a dustbin truck, or a bus or a bike? You chose “milk float” specifically because they are electric. And that is indeed a ridiculous characterization. The two technologies are as different as a modern gas car is to a Ford Model T.
Are you going to buy one?
Maybe? Once again, you completely misunderstand my point. I am not saying that everyone should have one, or that they fit everyone’s circumstances, or that we should get rid of ICEs. What I am saying that your characterization is ridiculous, and I’d be incomplete if I didn’t add “sophomoric”.
Oh no! Bolivia can make up to 40 Bolivian cents a ton selling their lithium, and they choose to sit on the deposits until a cheaper alternative comes along. I’m not sure what to think, and I’m not getting much inspiration here.
Currently considering a small condo in a downtown setting in a medium city.
If I pull that trigger, I’ll stock it with a used Tesla in the underground carpark (charger included.)
There is no better choice of vehicle for zipping around a city!
(I’ll keep a pickup truck for other needs, of course. EV’s aren’t for everything.)
My feelings exactly, about wind turbines. I really resent that the politics of the situation makes me hate the damn things.
I prefer the name ‘golf cart’ rather than ‘milk float’ as my choice of slur (and I have driven one; I do recall the fantastic acceleration but stopped racing as soon as I saw the battery power was visibly falling and range anxiety set in) but each to their own. Free world, apparently.
My eldest son drives a hybrid which serves him well, though he admits the battery capacity has declined over a couple of years though still maintains his mpg is way better than my ICE. My question is always why aren’t hybrids the propulsion of choice as they give, seemingly, the best of both worlds?
I seem to recall California at some time ago asking electric car drivers on one weekend asking owners not to charge their cars as the grid was under strain. Given the increase in electrical goods of all kinds generally how long before the UK’s electric car owners are asked to do the same? If solar panels are less effective in winter and wind inconsistent, will this be a feature of future winters for us irrespective of having charge our cars?
I also wonder if the adoption of so many electric vehicles and the attendant destructive battery fires we hear about has contributed to the annual hefty rise in my car insurance. If so, we are all paying for this new technology.
Anyway, where I live at the moment with only on-street parking (and across the road) the chance of me buying a Tesla is vanishingly small.
The design, design process and manufacturing process of wind turbines may be “a true modern wonder” but they are essentially useless.
For most of the United States (a big place) electric cars make no sense for long distances – so if liquid fuel cars go, either the railroad stations will have to be restored (much of the track is still there – unlike the United Kingdom where we, insanely, destroyed much of the track) and most people will have to live within easy reach of a railroad station – which would also serve as a powering point for short range electric cars. Although there would still be the problem of massively overburdening the electrical network – a problem that will get worse and worse as hydrocarbon (such as coal) power stations are closed down, OR (or) everyone will have to be packed into megacities (see later on).
“Carbon capture” (pipelines of C02 and underground storage) is utterly insane – and that is why it is disturbing tha the Governor of North Dakota (who is a booster of this Corporate Welfare scheme) has been tapped to be Secretary of the Interior (he is the bad appointment that people should be complaining about – but they are attacking good people instead).
Alternatively there is the Agenda 2030 plan – people driven from rural areas (the international establishment hate rural people) and shoved into megacities – which would even more hell-holes than big cities such as New York and Chicago already are. Anarcho-Tyranny – everything controlled except crime, people punished for any political or cultural dissent, but not punished for robbery, rape, murder….
No prizes for guessing which alternative the British government is going for.
Anarcho-Tyranny is an international agenda – rather than just a British one. But I suspect that the British government will push it further than other Western governments. “Everything policed – apart from crime” as Mark Steyn puts it.
British governance is very ideological – it really is. There is some corruption – but interests are of far less important in Britain than in other countries. The opinions of the people (the public) are of little importance here – what is important in Britain is the doctrines, the fads and fashions, of the “educated” establishment.
This is why I suspect that such policies will be pushed further here than in other Western countries.
As a lad, about 50 years ago now, I thought up an organisation for a future Britain – the Confederated Agency for Governmental Emergencies, or CAGE for short – with little cards of a stick drawing of a wide eyed, emaciated prisoner laying in their cell – clutching the bars in despair, as identification for officials working for CAGE.
In the 1970s the BBC (then not fully “Woke” – not fully totalitarian) came up with a different name – the “Department of Public Control” for the television series “1990” (the agenda has taken a lot longer than that – we are still not fully there even in 2024).
The series was actually broadcast in the 1970s – but never repeated, for obvious reasons (best not to tell the public what is coming – it will only upset them).
Whether the excuse is a virus (public health), or “racism” and “Islamophobia”, or “the Climate Crises” – the agenda of totalitarian control is what really matters.
@Fraser Orr
“Why not call them a dustbin truck, or a bus or a bike? You chose “milk float” specifically because they are electric”.
Well duh!
Yes, fundamentally an electric motor and a battery, with the crippling real world limitations that result. That’s my point which I think I’ve made perfectly clear.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just given a speech in Wales honouring the, oppressive, Welsh Labour government – and saying that he wishes to go much further in Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The policy of the United Kingdom government does appear to be a boot stamping down on a human face – for ever.
As for Bolivia – leaving the country to go to Argentina or Paraguay (not to the United States – whose Credit Bubble economy will crash in 2025 – President Trump, unjustly, getting the blame) would seem to be the best option for those of the Spanish speaking population who can leave.
Fraser Orr at November 15, 2024 at 9:17 pm, “…patents are extremely damaging to innovation…”,
But doesn’t an inventor need some incentive to invest in inventing? That is, if the invention, once disclosed, for example, by making and selling a product that can be easily reverse engineered, can be made and sold by others, the inventor is out of business. Especially given the amount of invention going on in the West with manufacturing going on in slave labor economies. Not all; there are certainly economies that manufacture more cheaply than the US or EU, but that are not slavers.
Seems that intellectual property needs some protection. If I’m reading you right, you disagree…why?
BTW, I learn a lot every time I visit Samizdata.net…including from you!
@Mike Marsh
My feelings exactly, about wind turbines. I really resent that the politics of the situation makes me hate the damn things.
I agree entirely. Personally I like small engineering as in cars over these big infrastructure projects, but that is my personal preference, and I can definitely see the engineering artistry in these huge projects. However, the politics does turn my stomach, and more importantly, I think, they are a horrible blight on the landscape. Traveling through the rural midwest used to be beautiful, now it is endless fields of windfarms. Ugly, especially since there are much better sources of energy, even ones that don’t produce any carbon dioxide emissions (for whatever that is worth.)
@Marius
The design, design process and manufacturing process of wind turbines may be “a true modern wonder” but they are essentially useless.
I really dislike the attitude that underlies this comment. Of course they aren’t useless, they generate very large amounts of electricity. From what I understand the whole dutch train system runs on electricity collected from wind farms. But that doesn’t mean they are something I support or that I think they are the right choice for the power grid. My argument is rather more nuanced than “windfarms and all leftie green projects be bad.”
This type of ideological thinking that blinds us to all sides of the issue is very, very counterproductive. It is why I hate that “milk float” thing too. The “good” guys need to openly and freely assess both the pros and cons of these technologies, not dig out heels in with a politically predetermined conclusion before assessing the facts.
Electric-powered anything works best when you have a continuous supply of electricity. So, that’s why electric trains, trams, washing machines, lighting, etc. The power is available directly on tap continously. By being physically connected to the supply. Even diesel-electric locomotives are still “permament connection to continous supply” – the suppy from the diesel-powered generators on board the locomotive.
In fact, if we really want to go all-out electrive motive power, that’s the way to go. Have an efficient hydrocarbon-powered genset on board your vehicle to generate the electricity for the efficient electric motive engine.
@GregWA
But doesn’t an inventor need some incentive to invest in inventing?
Thanks for you question Greg. I have discussed patents at great length here before, and I really need to get smarter at saving links to these things. I find samizdata rather hard to search. I also had this great paper analyzing the whole thing in great depth, with careful numerical analysis. However I seem to have lost the link, which is very annoying. You seem genuinely and honestly curious for a different point of view that it might pique your curiosity. I’ll try to dig it up.
But the essence of the argument is this: certainly patents incentivize innovation but they also disincentivize innovation. If I am an engineer trying to create some innovative new product then somehow I need to avoid the tangled nest of existing patents before I can get anywhere. I’m an engineer and I see this all the time in my work. (I work mostly in software now, where it is a lot less of a problem, because software patents are pretty limited.) Patents are a major hindrance to getting products out because of both the risk of hitting some patent trap and the gigantic cost of avoiding it. Have you read many patents? They are not technical documents, they are inscrutable legalese.
So does the incentive outweigh the disincentive? Well given the overwhelming support for patents you’d think the case was overwhelmingly conclusive. But the truth is that nobody has really even studied this question. There are a small number of studies (sorry I had the links but don’t any more, they are cited in previous threads) and their conclusions tend to be that the balance is about even or slightly indicating disincentive. But again, there really are very few large scale studies of this. And let’s be clear: if the government, if the international governments, are granting people 28 or 30 year monopolies in order to, as the constitution says “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” the evidence that it does so must be overwhelming.
And I think there is a bigger thing here which is that the public’s ideas about patents are completely wrong. The idea is that uncle Joe tinkering in his shed comes up with some amazing geegaw, and files a patent with the PTO protecting him from the big industry. Then goes on to PROFIT!! This is completely and totally the opposite of what the patent system actually is. Patents are granted in huge majority to large companies with huge legal departments churning out patent after patent by highly specialized lawyers. Uncle Joe could no more write a useful patent than I could rebuild a Tesla from its parts. Rather the opposite is true. Patents are used to crush uncle Joe and force him to sell his idea at a discount to some big company which has a patent on “a method and procedure for affixing one item to one or more additional items using a helically wrapped plane around a cylindrical structure”, which is to say, a screw. Which is appropriate, because Uncle Joe is gonna get screwed.
I could also go on to discuss what is the net value of innovation in a company, but that is a massive subject in itself. Or to discuss how the poster child for patents — the medical industry — is actually one of the best examples of patents stifling innovation. But I’m already in too deep for a Saturday morning.
Greg WA – these days patents and copyrights do not tend to be in the hands of the creators, or the “starving wives and children” that they were supposed to help in the past, they tend to be in the hands of vast Corporations who use corrupt courts and corrupt regulators to crush (rather than help) innovation.
Making these things last for 70 years (originally it was five years – then it gradually went up to 50 years, now 70 years) and allowing Corporations (rather than individuals) to own patents and copyrights, has discredited the Intellectual Property system.
With copyrights it is even more obvious than with patents – for example the copyright to most of Tolkien’s works is owned by Amazon – who hate, indeed despise, everything that Professor Tolkien believed in.
The lithium craze makes tulipmania and the South Sea Company bubbles look sane. Every country on the planet with a trace of lithium is blowing billions on mines and battery plants. Meanwhile the market for EV’s is tanking, no one has even started to build the power infrastructure to charge the mandated batteries. Epic idiocy.
Modern electric cars are marvels of engineering. As an engineer I find their design, their design process and their manufacturing process a true modern wonder.
The design, design process and manufacturing process of wind turbines may be “a true modern wonder” but they are essentially useless.
Same about electric cars. They are useless. Still, in a free country everyone buys the car he likes best.
They should not be subsidized or mandated by the Government.
@Paul Marks
Making these things last for 70 years
Patents in the US are usually 28 years maximum, and outside the US generally 30 years. You are probably referring to copyright which is, generally speaking, for 70 years after the author’s death. That is, a simplified version of, the law here in the USA, though I imagine it is similar elsewhere.
With copyrights it is even more obvious than with patents
FWIW, I don’t agree with Paul here. I am much more in favor of copyright protection than patent protection (though I have issues with a lot of the particulars of the law.) Copyrighted works are whole things that are no more likely to be accidentally duplicated than a million monkeys could type out shakespeare, and there is much less of a trap of violating previous copyrights than there is of violating previous patents. This latter point is one place I am not so keen on copyright law as written. For example, if I want to write an Encyclopedia of Harry Potter I can’t because Rowling has ownership not only of the text itself but many of the ideas in the text, which I think goes far to far. I also think that copyrights go on FAR too long.
And BTW, this also reveals another point about invention and patents which is that things tend to get invented when they first can be invented. What I mean by that is that every invention is based on a thousand other discoveries before it. The integrated circuit was made possible by the invention of the mosfet transistor which was made possible by the invention of the transistor which was made possible by chemical processes to make pure silicon crystals which was made possible by the invention of the machines that make those crystals, which was mode possible by the invention of steel production which was made possible by some caveman rubbing two sticks together.
And invention, as a general rule, happens when the precursors of that invention are invented. It is a natural consequence of those precursors. This is why it is REALLY common for two people to invent the same thing at the same time, and then there is a race to the patent office. This is not nearly as true with the creation of works of art like novels or paintings.
Which is to say “invention” is much less of a big deal than most people think. It is really the ongoing evolution of the technological space. Every engineer invents new things every single day. Small things that often add up to bigger things. If those all get patented? Nobody would ever get anything done.
Paul, the Tolkien IP issue is a mess. Amazon for their alleged $250,000,000 got bugger-all – hence “Stoors” – they can’t use the word “Hobbit”. Not even New Line got that much (largely not the songs*). The Hobbit is out of copyright after LoTR because JRRT revised it after LotR was published. The Sil and HoME is even more complicated because that’s Christopher Tolkien (and Guy Gavriel Kay – possibly). The novels “extracted” from Sil are something else… As are derived games etc.
What is fascinating is how these various players will extract the mithril from this stuff as the clock ticks down. Because when it’s PD – Eru alone knows.
*The songs are partly owned by the estate of Donald Swann who wrote the musical scores.
I watched part of one of the new Amazon LOTR series episodes.
They may have extracted the mithral from the original IP, but if they did, they’re keeping it hidden somewhere. I saw scant evidence of it on Prime.
(FWIW, my one son who has never read Tolkien (sigh – gotta do a DNA test on that boy someday) watched the ROP series and thought it was very good. So I do have to admit the possibility that I hated it for fanatical reasons.)
bobby,
I think you might find a trace of orc… Amazon’s RoP doesn’t work at any level. If you don’t know JRRT it’ll probs seem like a second-rate Game of Thrones. If you are a fan it is a travesty and very confusing in terms of timelines and such. I did watch the first series (never getting that time back!) for some reason and found it dreadful. The only positive is that Amazon seem to have got a financial kicking over their atrocity.
Exactly, it seems these backward countries can have their resources extracted by Western companies, at the price the Western countries want to pay for those resources.
If I were a citizen of South America I’d be quaking in my shoes at the news that the US was going to pivot its foreign policy to South America. A sort of 1980s redux.
As an unsuccessful inventor and writer, I like the patent and copyright system. Though I don’t yet have any money from my ideas, the possibility kept me going. And do you really think that the Dyson vacuum cleaners are just extensions of older technology?
@Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray
As an unsuccessful inventor and writer, I like the patent and copyright system.
The copyright system will protect you, the patent system will not. Patents do not work (or at least very rarely work) for the little guy. They have been engineered over the past two hundred years to benefit huge companies, and to allow them to crush the competition. Patents are the enemy of the little guy, not their friend. As an example Google bought Motorola Mobile division for the patents largely. Why? So that they could sue people and collect revenue? No. They bought it for defense — so that when they are sued they can sue back and then make a deal. Do you have a bank of a thousand patents that you can use defensively?
Though I don’t yet have any money from my ideas, the possibility kept me going.
Unfortunately, you have been sold a delusion. The patent system wants you to think it is all about the Robert Kearns of the world. But they are few and far between. I want to promise you, no doubt you are a very smart person but you CANNOT write a patent that will survive in court unless you have gone to law school. They are legal documents not technical documents. And if you hire a lawyer to do it for you? Expect to pay him $50k to write it and a half million dollars to defend it in court. #askmehowiknow.
That isn’t to say you can’t make a success for yourself. You just have to orient your business away from the idea that you’ll invent something and the patent will make you gazillions or that the government will give you a monopoly. Make a great product and be great at marketing and selling it. The dirty little secret? Commerce is far more about sales, marketing and logistics than it is about great products.
That is how you are successful as a solo entrepreneur. If you want to grow you raise capital and the VCs will work with you on the patent side of things (because they DO have a thousand patents they can work with you on.)
And do you really think that the Dyson vacuum cleaners are just extensions of older technology?
I don’t know much about them so I can’t answer definitively, but I’m going to say yes.
Fraser Orr – I stand corrected on the length of time on patents.
I do know there is a whole town in Texas devoted to patents – the town is around a courthouse and all the the town basically does is patents. I suspect they can carry on things a bit longer – and they certainly wildly distort patent law in order to benefit corporations – it-just-so-happens that every new invention that is presented to this court turns out to be already patented, and the patent just happens to be owned by a vast corporation.
Yes – the court is corrupt.
Hollywood shows just how twisted the copyright system has become.
People who love works are not allowed to make adaptations – only people who hate and despise everything the creators of the works stood for, are allowed to make adaptations. The films and television shows are not vile by accident – they are vile intentionally (DEI agenda and so on).
In this way culture (the society) is harmed.
They should not be subsidized or mandated by the Government.
Because the government is the worst selector of which technology to back, remember the compact fluorescent lightbulbs?
An just like with the CFLs, when LEDs were coming to market making them redundant, the development of carbon neutral synthetic fuel has just made battery electric vehicles a waste of time.
Battery technology is great. but the infrastructure required to generate and distribute the electricity needed makes it unviable, especially when synthetic fuel can use the existing engine and network.
It was mentioned that having electric motors powered by an onboard generator, an idea developed by Mr Porsche back in the early 1900s, it was even used in a tank.
My invention was simple, having only 2 parts, and I could afford a Patent Attorney for only $5,000 Australian Dollars. I could not get button makers interested. I thought that having a clothing button you could easily move around would be something that would sell itself. I still think there could be a large market for it.
@Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray
My invention was simple, having only 2 parts, and I could afford a Patent Attorney for only $5,000 Australian Dollars. I could not get button makers interested. I thought that having a clothing button you could easily move around would be something that would sell itself. I still think there could be a large market for it.
Any patent lawyer charging just $5000 is a con artist. There are lots of guys out there who will try to scam people like you who think they have a good idea and offer all sorts of things. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure he would produce a patent document and get it filed, and maybe even issued. But a patent document in itself doesn’t do you any good. What it is used for is if someone else starts making you idea, you can then sue them to try to either stop it or get royalties. Unless that patent is extremely well written you have no chance in hell of getting one dime, and the cost of the suit will be astronomical. He might produce a patent but it will not be good enough to give you any value. You’d be pissing away your money.
I usable patent requires the attorney to look at all prior art in the field (tens of thousands of patents) and work out what of your idea is original. And then carefully craft a set of claims that capture that without infringing on the prior art. Do you really think he can do that with 20 hours of work?
Instead, if you think your idea is great, spend you money on making it and then spend more money marketing the hell out of it. Worrying about someone coming along and competing will get you nowhere. IF you have the entrepreneurial urge and a great idea then god bless you. Our prosperity is built on people like you. But patents aren’t the right way. Instead make it, market it, sell it get a business going and worry about that stuff another time when you have a shot.
This thread is pretty dead now, so wasn’t watching it, but I saw this post and I wanted to warn you. There are lots of those guys out there offering these sorts of services for cheap prices. You will be wasting your money if you pay them. They are quite simply con artists.
No, you are wrong there. The fee was low because the idea was simple, and easy to understand, and easy to write up in a patent form. Perhaps American and Australian Patent Attorneys are different.
@Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray
No, you are wrong there. The fee was low because the idea was simple, and easy to understand, and easy to write up in a patent form. Perhaps American and Australian Patent Attorneys are different.
You are welcome to believe this, but you are not correct. I have been dealing with patents and patent lawyers for decades and have seen every scam in the books. I coach young entrepreneurs and have seen a lot of them get ripped off by this sort of scam. Someone offering you a patent for $5000 is a scam. No patent is easy to write up because it requires a massive amount of research regardless of how small the idea is. He’ll give you a patent all right. Heck I could do it too. But the result would be unusably crap. And what are you going to do when some mega corp starts making your product in China and sells it everywhere outside of Australia? Are you planning to get patent protection worldwide too? And what if they start selling it in Australia. You going to hire a team of lawyers to contend with the team of lawyers they will bring to the table? Do you have the hundreds of thousands of dollars that would take? Or perhaps you could sell your patent to some patent troll for pennies on the dollar because you can’t afford to execute the lawsuit?
If you have an idea start a company and do it. That way you have a hope of making some success. Write a patent yourself if you want to, it’ll be as useful as the $5000 lawyer guy and a lot cheaper. IP is for the big boys not for you. Not now anyway.
However, it’s your money. I just felt that in good conscience I could not let this pass without comment.
Oh and another thing — what are you going to do if you do sue, and then the mega corp counter sues you because something you are doing violates some patent they have that you have never heard of? Especially so because your bargain basement lawyer didn’t do adequate research. This is 100% normal practice in these types of lawsuits, and they will have you by the balls. Remember you have one crappy poorly written patent and they have three thousand written by expert lawyers.
I don’t mean to beat up on you. You seem like one of the good guys so I’d hate to see you get scammed. The commonly held idea of what patents are is a delusion. See my comments on Uncle Joe above. I don’t want to pop your bubble, but like I say you seem like one of the good guys and I’d hate to see you get taken by this industry of scammers.
Please remember a patent gives you exactly one right — the right to initiate a lawsuit against some other corporation. Is that really what you want to do? Do you really have the funds to support that? Are you ok if the best case outcome is that you have to sell out to some patent troll who’ll maybe pay you what you paid to your initial patent guy?
Spend your $5000 on making products and marketing them. That way you might get a return on your money if you pursue it with energy and speed. Screwing around with patents will waste both your time and your money. I’m not saying you can’t make a big success from your idea. Just pursuing it through a patent is not going to redound to your benefit. Make your product. Market it. Sell it. This is your best course of action. Bust your ass and hit the Christmas 2025 market. I wish you all success in the world. Entrepreneurs are the foundation of all our prosperity.
Fraser Orr:
(In Defense Of Cheap Patent Apps – which I really can’t believe I’m offering):
There is utility to be found in imperfect, poorly-financed patents for relatively simple widgets. You get what you pay for, and for a small price you get a small protection, but it IS protection, and it will suffice for many situations.
If SuperMegaBuxCorpInc decides it is going to go all in on stealing my new system design, sure, I’m toast. In most legal fights, if I can’t match my attacker’s budget, I’m going to lose, and that situation is no different.
If I’m designing a new computer operating system which will crush the world, then I’m going to need an elegant patent, a crushing patent law firm, and legal budget to match. But if I’m designing a new bottle opener, my needs are going to be smaller.
That’s because the stakes will be smaller, and the proofs required will be simpler.
Plus, the patent number, or even the little “pp” marque, will actually slow down some later inventors and thieves from violating my patent terms. Some may not want a fight. Others cannot get their own financing when someone else has a head start on the patent process.
A cheap patent is like a beater car. It’s not beautiful, it won’t beat all competition, but it will carry you to some of the places you want to go. I’d rather go into a fight wearing a full titanium suit of armor – but a small handshield does have some utility, and if that’s what I can afford, I’m carrying one.
@bobby b
That’s because the stakes will be smaller, and the proofs required will be simpler.
Ok but if TinyCorp starts practicing your invention your only option is to sue. It isn’t like you call the cops and they send in the sheriff like you would if I stole your car. Your only option is to sue. Maybe a letter from a lawyer is enough, if you get lucky. But if you don’t and they fight it, it is “who runs out of money for paying the lawyers first”.
I’d rather go into a fight wearing a full titanium suit of armor – but a small handshield does have some utility, and if that’s what I can afford, I’m carrying one.
But your argument is the appearance of a patent is enough to scare people off, it doesn’t actually offer any practical defensive force. So it is more like making a shield out of cardboard and painting it real well so that it looks tough. I suppose that would deter some people, but very few. And here is the real issue I have. If you spend all your money on a shield that is useless, and are not left with enough money to buy a sword then you are much worse off.
I read a story a while ago about our troops in Iraq were short on body armor because the manufacturers couldn’t keep up. So loved ones at home were buying it an shipping it. Problem is that the body armor they bought was crap. Having body armor that you think works but doesn’t is considerably worse than having none at all. Especially since your loved ones back home can’t buy groceries for a month.
If you want a patent for patents sake file one yourself. Read a book and you can do it over the weekend. Here in the US a provisional patent costs abot $60 and a full patent maybe $150 (I don’t remember exactly.) They will be just as useless as the cardboard shield or the one from the scammy patent lawyer. But at least you still have most of your $5000 left to create your product, market it and set up a functional logistics organization.
Entrepreneurs do not fail, generally speaking, due to lack of IP protection (a phrase that causes me physical pain to write), they fail because of insufficient capital or lack of drive, speed and focus from the leaders. Patents are a useless, money consuming distraction that offer false hope and no practical protection.
If I can I’d rather save Mr. Gray from that pain. Spend your money getting your business going. Make products. Sell products. Get customers. Invent new things. That’s where the action is at, not in some dusty government office trying to muscle people who can crush you like a bug. You can’t compete with the big boys on money, power, lawyers or access to government benefits. What you can compete with them on is being nimble, innovative and responsive to your customers and market. Do that long enough and you’ll have some heft to throw around where some of these issues can be revisited.
Yep.
I have a friend who lives high up in some very nice Manhattan real estate and fights patent battles for a (nice) living. He will agree with most everything that you said above.
He will also agree with what I said above. In fact, he’s the one who gave me that wisdom.
Millions of people put fake ADT “security system installed” stickers and signs around their property. That’s all they have – the sign. No alarm will go off, because they don’t have one.
And yet, they’re effective at keeping some burglars away.
That’s the prime purpose of a cheap patent. You see the patent number, or even the “pp” marque, and it makes you think before you copy. It won’t do you much good if someone wants a fight – but it makes people hesitate to start a fight. It’s a cardboard sword, but who can tell from a distance?
Worth the $5000? Maybe not. But . . . maybe.
(And if you ever seek financing, it’s almost a requirement.)
@bobby b
Worth the $5000? Maybe not. But . . . maybe.
I mean I guess this isn’t wrong, but if you are going to go the fake cardboard shield route, go to the library, get the NOLO “How to write a patent” book, spend the weekend doing that, and file it. It’ll be a lot cheaper than Mr. “$5000” and will be just as effective to achieve those ends.
And then get on with actually making products and selling them. I’ve talked to a lot of people with ideas they think are super valuable. Because I’ve run a lot of businesses and I know about these things they will slide over to me with a “can you keep a secret, I need some advice….” thinking they are going to file with the government and be the next Elon Musk. Often I think though that swimming in the whole patent mess is an excuse for not getting things done. Not, to use one of my favorite phrases from Indian English, “doing the needful.”
I hope Mr. Gray’s idea is a great one. And I hope he busts his ass and works like Elon Musk to take an idea to a product to a sale to a flourishing business. You don’t need any patents to do that. Just hard, relentless, commitment and work. I wish him, with all sincerity, the very best of luck. And I hope he invites me on his private yacht when he makes it big !!!
Sometimes these devices are real.
For example, I was out canvassing in a council by-election and came upon a door with a human skull on it (it was a fake skull – although it was NOT Halloween time) “that looks sinister” I said to a colleague (we are used to weird things on doors and windows – pentagrams and other black magic stuff, this sort of thing is on the rise, but a human skull was a bit much) – later-that-day……
“Tory Canvasser says my front door looks sinister” was splashed on Facebook – with my voice and face (and blue rosette) broadcast, yes the person had a recording device in his door, and tried to use my words against me (people often do – I tend to be blunter than the average political person).
However, most people seemed to agree with me – that having a human skull on your front door does look sinister. We won that by-election.
I remember having having some park land in my ward dug up by the police – looking for a body. Murders and disappearances are RARE but they sometimes happen. Sometimes mystical mumbo-jumbo is involved, sometimes not.