About patents.
I have come across many examples many were on techdirt.
In theory they might work.
In real-world applications the patent system screws innovation and small companies. In the EU patents are very expensive and requires a prototype. In the US the patent system probably has other problems.
The small companies can not pay the bills, patent-research, reverse engineering and lawyers that are necessary to get paid for innovative inventions.
Besides that most of the inventions are not really innovative. Because they are often just small changes of older tech or new combinations of older tech. Or by improving the production or fabrication process.
A lot of profit is made by producing a product cheaper (like in China) and short lived. And not by making it high quality or durable.
In a war situation the patent systems are relaxed, so in those times we see that companies are "inventing" more stuff.
As an example:
Let's look at this truly innovative technology of the SAFIRE project: The transmutations of atoms by electricity.
It may break down nuclear waste, it can generate energy.
It is an invention that can change our world.
Will a patent be accepted? Probably not, because a lot of nuclear power "experts" will tell us that it is impossible and that this must be a hoax of some kind.
They will need money to research the different ways the power can be generated and extracted. Or how how nuclear waste can be transformed.
It will be 10 to 20 years of research on a small scale.
And during that time big companies will try to steal this tech and claim it as their own. They will also pay some scientists to claim that it is the next step of quantum technology. Most do not understand quantum mechanics anyway.
So even if it works, this product will probably not reach the market soon.
Due to the patent system and due to how science can be stuck in a system.
And if it reaches the market the inventors will still not see much money from it, and big companies will have stolen it from them.
About patents.
I have come across many examples many were on techdirt.
In theory they might work.
In real-world applications the patent system screws innovation and small companies. In the EU patents are very expensive and requires a prototype. In the US the patent system probably has other problems.
The small companies can not pay the bills, patent-research, reverse engineering and lawyers that are necessary to get paid for innovative inventions.
Besides that most of the inventions are not really innovative. Because they are often just small changes of older tech or new combinations of older tech. Or by improving the production or fabrication process.
A lot of profit is made by producing a product cheaper (like in China) and short lived. And not by making it high quality or durable.
In a war situation the patent systems are relaxed, so in those times we see that companies are "inventing" more stuff.
As an example:
Let's look at this truly innovative technology of the SAFIRE project:
The transmutations of atoms by electricity.
It may break down nuclear waste, it can generate energy.
It is an invention that can change our world.
Will a patent be accepted? Probably not, because a lot of nuclear power "experts" will tell us that it is impossible and that this must be a hoax of some kind.
They will need money to research the different ways the power can be generated and extracted. Or how how nuclear waste can be transformed.
It will be 10 to 20 years of research on a small scale.
And during that time big companies will try to steal this tech and claim it as their own. They will also pay some scientists to claim that it is the next step of quantum technology. Most do not understand quantum mechanics anyway.
So even if it works, this product will probably not reach the market soon.
Due to the patent system and due to how science can be stuck in a system.
And if it reaches the market the inventors will still not see much money from it, and big companies will have stolen it from them.