4 ms·

Is the idea of self-ownership of ideas a modern / western invention? How old is copyright / trademark / patent as a broad concept?

ghaff 9y ago
Relatively modern. In 1449, John of Utynam was awarded a 20-year monopoly for a glass-making process previously unknown in England, which sources seem to indicate is the first patent. English copyrights followed a couple of centuries later. In the absence of relatively modern industrial processes, a legal system, the printing press (in the case of copyright), this sort of ownership doesn't make a lot of sense. Though there are doubtless earlier examples where guilds or other groups of craftsmen had trade secrets related to processes such as sword making.
patrickg_zill 9y ago
There were trade secrets prior to any official patents system. For instance, a family of physicians that kept their invention of forceps used in delivering babies, a secret for more than 100 years: http://mentalfloss.com/article/85527/show-tell-obstetrical-forceps-invention-kept-secret-more-century http://mentalfloss.com/article/85527/show-tell-obstetrical-f...
- Vendan 9y ago
  technically, trade secrets are roughly the opposite of patents. Trade secrets are "tell no one, and no one can use it cause they don't know about it", whereas patents are "tell everyone, and the government will make sure no one can use it for a while", with the advantage of patents being that a) the public will be able to use it once your patent term is up, while b) the government becomes the enforcer, rather then your ability to keep the secret. Monopolies are largely recognized as a potential negative, but in this case, patents provide a way to encourage publicizing knowledge. Without patents, companies would attempt to keep everything a secret, arguably a negative to society.
  - have_faith 9y ago
    The idea of publicising knowledge and then saying 'it's illegal to do anything with this knowledge' feels intuitively wrong but I can't explain succinctly why. 20 years also seems too long as well but again, hard to explain why. I understand that monopolies are wrong, but so is teaching a man to fish and telling him he can't make a rod from a known good design for 20 years.
    - Vendan 9y ago
      it's a tradeoff. Which is better, saying "here's how to make a better fishing rod, but I get to be the only one to make it for 20 years" or "I know how to make a better fishing rod, but I'm not going to tell anyone else, this knowledge may be lost at any point, and I'm going to be the only one making them for the next 50 years."

ghaff 9y ago

Relatively modern. In 1449, John of Utynam was awarded a 20-year monopoly for a glass-making process previously unknown in England, which sources seem to indicate is the first patent. English copyrights followed a couple of centuries later. In the absence of relatively modern industrial processes, a legal system, the printing press (in the case of copyright), this sort of ownership doesn't make a lot of sense. Though there are doubtless earlier examples where guilds or other groups of craftsmen had trade secrets related to processes such as sword making.

patrickg_zill 9y ago

There were trade secrets prior to any official patents system. For instance, a family of physicians that kept their invention of forceps used in delivering babies, a secret for more than 100 years: http://mentalfloss.com/article/85527/show-tell-obstetrical-forceps-invention-kept-secret-more-century http://mentalfloss.com/article/85527/show-tell-obstetrical-f...

Vendan 9y ago
technically, trade secrets are roughly the opposite of patents. Trade secrets are "tell no one, and no one can use it cause they don't know about it", whereas patents are "tell everyone, and the government will make sure no one can use it for a while", with the advantage of patents being that a) the public will be able to use it once your patent term is up, while b) the government becomes the enforcer, rather then your ability to keep the secret. Monopolies are largely recognized as a potential negative, but in this case, patents provide a way to encourage publicizing knowledge. Without patents, companies would attempt to keep everything a secret, arguably a negative to society.
- have_faith 9y ago
  The idea of publicising knowledge and then saying 'it's illegal to do anything with this knowledge' feels intuitively wrong but I can't explain succinctly why. 20 years also seems too long as well but again, hard to explain why. I understand that monopolies are wrong, but so is teaching a man to fish and telling him he can't make a rod from a known good design for 20 years.
  - Vendan 9y ago
    it's a tradeoff. Which is better, saying "here's how to make a better fishing rod, but I get to be the only one to make it for 20 years" or "I know how to make a better fishing rod, but I'm not going to tell anyone else, this knowledge may be lost at any point, and I'm going to be the only one making them for the next 50 years."