>>13685957Patents are always a double edged sword, because while it stimulates development through monetary incentive, there's too much added blackboxing that comes with it in order to check and detail issues with the patented development. I think there needs to be innovation with regards to oversight between two proprietary competitors and a public overseer. With the public overseer forcing the private companies to check each others work and discuss the issues potentially there. At the same time, the public overseer should only see enough to make sure that two competitors are checking each others work to a sufficient level without destroying the competitive initiative completely.
I bet it probably already exists as a legal arrangement or a form of arbitration.
Public disclosure should be improved though at the same time, but not so far as to completely compromise innovation. You need some level of darkness or it just becomes a complete mess when providing an innovation to the public unspecialised in this field.
My concern at the moment is that looking at general public stats on simple mortality rates is that they indicate something foul in the process and a lack of frankness with highlighting the problems involved. There needs to be more incentive to whistleblow on these issues within the company (say for example monetary gifts for individuals that whistleblow on massive problems that the company they are in does not reveal or is so big that it's impossible for it to reveal). Then there has to be arrangements to cover the blowback to the corp for that situation without just making them ignore issues entirely.
