3 ms·
Okay, I'll go further then to say, save up $40,000, then quit your job. Create a company called whateveryouwannacallit.com and start inventing stuff. New algo
by fnid2 17y ago
Okay, I'll go further then to say, save up $40,000, then quit your job. Create a company called whateveryouwannacallit.com and start inventing stuff. New algorithms. Optimize compression. Optimize Video streaming.
Then spend $20,000 to have an attorney draw up a patent for you. I know some. I can connect you. Then, market the patent to corporations. Start a bidding war. That's what it all boils down to.
It's hard work to feed yourself and clothe yourself and be an entrepreneur and build a company that solves real problems for people that are willing to pay money for it. Those entrepreneurs should be rewarded by the system just like corporations.
Corporations are people too. They are composed of employees who are their employees and feed beautiful families with children living good lives. Yes, some of them make billions, like Steve Jobs, but some of them live modest lives in an old neighborhood near downtown just like lots of other people.
I think there is a lot of value here. Good value for hard work and innovation and I think there need to be more rewards for innovation that makes the world better. This is just one way it can be done.
It happens genuinely everywhere. Maybe someone gets good at writing music and sells millions of albums. That's just code or could be represented with code, yet if I write an algorithm, how am I going to share that algorithm with the world and also receive the benefits. If you argue copyright, then perhaps I could copyright it, but that means the whole world has it and if the whole world has it, then the inventor gets essentially nothing. It's like open source.
As I see it. Patents are the only protection for open source. When including the source code with the patent, you ensure the idea can be built upon and improved by a community of passionate people who can really do a lot to build on the myriad patents out there.
A copyright doesn't do this. It's not sufficient. My argument is that Monsanto should be able to patent DNA and DNA is no different than the source code behind an algorithm. They are both equal under the law and that is the way it should be.
I mean, in essence, opponents of software patents are arguing for discrimination under the law. I don't understand why computer scientists and computer engineers who build novel software systems that move stuff around and store it on physical disks aren't every bit as patentable as a crane or a type of diesel engine.
- jfoutz 17y agoMonsanto can patent dna, because they got those atoms in a particular sequence. I'm willing to stipulate DNA is no different than the soruce code behind a program, but no way is that the same as an algorithm. an algorithm is a set of rules for solving the problem. i can follow those rules, i can pay someone to follow them for me. i could have a computer follow those rules, i could embed those rules in dna, do some chemistry i don't understand then extract the sequence that followed the rules i care about. The algorithm is independent of the medium. You can patent an engine. Heck, you can patent a few. You can't patent the idea of engine.
- nostrademons 17y ago"Then spend $20,000 to have an attorney draw up a patent for you. I know some. I can connect you. Then, market the patent to corporations. Start a bidding war." This doesn't work either (unless you have an ex-Microsoftie whose initials are N.M. backing you). Think of it from the corporation's POV. They could buy the patent now. Or they could wait - since you just spent $20k patenting your invention, you're probably down to a year or less of runway left. When you run out of money, then they buy your company (and the patent with it), at fire-sale prices. You are, of course, welcome to try. But typically people find they have more success by keeping the invention secret, then either finding customers or drumming up enough attention that they can get investors, then marketing the company to corporations while they're in a position of negotiating strength. Ultimately, you need money to stay in business - if you have patents but no money, you'll quickly find that someone with money gets the patent, but if you have money but no patents, you can get somebody else's patents pretty easily (either through employment or acquisition.
- fnid2 17y agoThere are several options at this fork. A) go back to work with owning a patent on your resume. Lots of companies would hire you. Use the patent to make money and support yourself and avoid the need to sell at fire sale prices. More success keeping the invention secret is precisely why patents are a good idea. It lets the inventor release the idea and still protect it.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y agoAnd what do you do if a large corporation uses your invention anyway, and doesn't tell anyone they're doing so? Firstly, you have to find out they've infringed. Secondly, you have to sue for protection. How will you accomplish either of those steps, let alone both?