3 ms·
> If you were to remove patent protections, the progress of science and useful art would not suddenly take a nose dive. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that pa
by twblalock 10y ago
> If you were to remove patent protections, the progress of science and useful art would not suddenly take a nose dive. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that patents stifle progress in art and science.
Why would corporations be motivated to promote progress in science if someone else could come along and get all of their hard-earned research and development for free?
It costs millions or billions of dollars to drive innovation, and there are very few (if any) corporations idealistic enough to spend that kind of money if they don't think they will be able to earn it back.
- mcbits 10y agoBecause the other option besides innovation is to compete in the "drive margins to zero" space, which isn't very profitable. Patents don't drive innovation. They supposedly prevent innovation from being locked up in trade secrets to live and die with the inventor. But today's patents are written by lawyers and for lawyers. Patents are usually so terrible at their one job - elucidating inventions - that it takes years of debate between experts just to decide whether a patent even applies to an existing product. They are of no value to the public 20 years later. The whole system has become a make-work welfare program for lawyers and a barrier to free competition.