3 ms·

Very relevant is the phenomenon of simultaneous invention (which if correct throws serious doubt on the usefulness of patents) discussed in a fascinating Gladwe

• _delirium 17y ago
  It's a broader philosophical issue in the history of ideas, also: when should an inventor get credit for inventing something, and how much credit, and how do we know? Some inventions were truly amazing insights, where if the inventor hadn't come up with them, the world would probably have been without that invention for decades, if it ever got it. But many inventors essentially anticipate history by only a few months or even weeks: they get to an idea that, given progress on subsidiary technologies, was getting to the point where it was obvious to anyone in the field, but they get there just ever-so-slightly earlier than everyone else, so win the race, but don't really change history much as a result.
• archgoon 17y ago
  >Very relevant is the phenomenon of simultaneous invention (which if correct throws serious doubt on the usefulness of patents) Does it? The basic argument remains the same, the need to make it worth the initial effort of research and development. Just because more than one inventor decided that the expenditure of time and effort was worth the return from the patent doesn't change the argument that no one would have bothered/financed it to begin with if not for the patents.