4 ms·

I think it all comes down to the damage that patents deal to independent invention. Painters can't tell you that your painting is a violation and cannot be sol

I think it all comes down to the damage that patents deal to independent invention. Painters can't tell you that your painting is a violation and cannot be sold because you used an arrangement of elements that they had used before.

mattmaroon 17y ago
But that's not a problem with patents in concept, or the people who deal in them, it's a problem with the implementation of our patent system, which almost everyone on both sides of the argument agrees needs a drastic overhaul. If you enforce novelty and non-obviousness properly, that problem disappears. Also, musicians sue each other over this all the time.
- andrewljohnson 17y ago
  You must be playing devil's advocate here, because you couldn't possibly want the rights to use an idea to be based on an arbitrary standard, mediated by technologically illiterate members of the legal profession.
  - mattmaroon 17y ago
    Neither. I'd like protection of inventions by solid standards issued by an enlightened patent office. I realize we're a good way from it now, but don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem we have has nothing to do with the legal system, that's just a symptom. The disease is that patents are poorly researched, issued according to guidelines as capriciously enforced as the iTunes App Store, and are therefore frequently rendered toothless in court. They are hoarded by corporations as little more than weapons to respond to other patents with. It's sort of an intellectual mutually assured destruction. The legal system too may need some improvement where it comes to patent litigation, but it still must exist and be a part. But I think the ideal of a very good patent system, backed up by enforcement (because otherwise it's pointless) that is reasonable, fair, and swift, and enhanced by a liquid market for legitimate patents would spark a wave of innovation perhaps unlike anything we've ever seen. On the other hand, it's much easier and more fun (and less disruptive to a naive, black-and-white worldview) to simply call people patent trolls.
    - andrewljohnson 17y ago
      I think this enlightened patent office you are seeking is a mirage. The people are never going to be disinterested enough, educated enough, or smart enough to award patents in a reasonable way. I think the ideal of a very good patent system is great. I'm all for protecting the little inventor against the evil corporations, but the current laws have the opposite effect. Moreover, any law grounded in subjectivity, which is then argued over by spending money in court, can never help the little guy. As long as having a patent requires having a lawyer, patents offer no protection to anyone but the uber-rich and large corporations. If you want to help the common inventor, I think the surest way is to just abolish patents all together and let people compete. Inventors can still keep secrets if they so choose.
- ssp 17y ago
  The conceptual problem with patents is that they grant an artificial monopoly on something, just like copyright does. That's a distortion of the free market, so if you believe in free markets, a priori they shouldn't be allowed. To argue otherwise, you will need to show that a practical system can be created that will do enough good to outweigh the artificial monopolies created.

mattmaroon 17y ago

But that's not a problem with patents in concept, or the people who deal in them, it's a problem with the implementation of our patent system, which almost everyone on both sides of the argument agrees needs a drastic overhaul. If you enforce novelty and non-obviousness properly, that problem disappears. Also, musicians sue each other over this all the time.

andrewljohnson 17y ago
You must be playing devil's advocate here, because you couldn't possibly want the rights to use an idea to be based on an arbitrary standard, mediated by technologically illiterate members of the legal profession.
- mattmaroon 17y ago
  Neither. I'd like protection of inventions by solid standards issued by an enlightened patent office. I realize we're a good way from it now, but don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The problem we have has nothing to do with the legal system, that's just a symptom. The disease is that patents are poorly researched, issued according to guidelines as capriciously enforced as the iTunes App Store, and are therefore frequently rendered toothless in court. They are hoarded by corporations as little more than weapons to respond to other patents with. It's sort of an intellectual mutually assured destruction. The legal system too may need some improvement where it comes to patent litigation, but it still must exist and be a part. But I think the ideal of a very good patent system, backed up by enforcement (because otherwise it's pointless) that is reasonable, fair, and swift, and enhanced by a liquid market for legitimate patents would spark a wave of innovation perhaps unlike anything we've ever seen. On the other hand, it's much easier and more fun (and less disruptive to a naive, black-and-white worldview) to simply call people patent trolls.
  - andrewljohnson 17y ago
    I think this enlightened patent office you are seeking is a mirage. The people are never going to be disinterested enough, educated enough, or smart enough to award patents in a reasonable way. I think the ideal of a very good patent system is great. I'm all for protecting the little inventor against the evil corporations, but the current laws have the opposite effect. Moreover, any law grounded in subjectivity, which is then argued over by spending money in court, can never help the little guy. As long as having a patent requires having a lawyer, patents offer no protection to anyone but the uber-rich and large corporations. If you want to help the common inventor, I think the surest way is to just abolish patents all together and let people compete. Inventors can still keep secrets if they so choose.
ssp 17y ago
The conceptual problem with patents is that they grant an artificial monopoly on something, just like copyright does. That's a distortion of the free market, so if you believe in free markets, a priori they shouldn't be allowed. To argue otherwise, you will need to show that a practical system can be created that will do enough good to outweigh the artificial monopolies created.