4 ms·

However, you're not supposed to be able to protect that knowledge with a patent. In general, IP laws are a recognition of the phenomenon that making something

by gaius 9y ago

However, you're not supposed to be able to protect that knowledge with a patent. In general, IP laws are a recognition of the phenomenon that making something for the first time is difficult and/or expensive, but once it exists it is cheap to reproduce. This differs from tangible goods in that much of the value has gone into the sourcing and manipulation of physical materials. Once again I find it bemusing that a startup-oriented community doesn't get this. The system is far from perfect in execution, I'll admit, but it's all that means that a small company can innovate without immediately being crushed by an entrenched firm with superior manufacturing and distribution capabilities. Ultimately most anti-IP arguments boil down to "I want to be paid for what I create but I want what everyone else creates for free". That's not sustainable. Also speaking of croissants and IP law you might find this amusing http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2014/03/bakery-hit-with-cronuts-cease-and-desist-order.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2014/03/bakery-hit-...

lordnacho 9y ago
> In general, IP laws are a recognition of the phenomenon that making something for the first time is difficult and/or expensive, but once it exists it is cheap to reproduce. You are mixing up a number of things into "IP Laws". Some things make sense, others do not. - For instance, it's perfectly reasonable that people who make some product can do so under their own brand without other people pretending to be the same brand. We can't have some new entrant calling themselves McDonalds and selling Big Macs. - Patents are indeed meant to address the issue you are on about. But the "invention" of cheeseburger + croissant is not hard to produce for the first time. In this case the patent is pretending to be doing something difficult, but what it's actually protecting is the first person who happens to test some random market (what about chicken wings + marmite?). And that is the distinction you need to be thinking about. Another example of this was the lawsuit about the "rubber band" effect on UIs. In no way is it hard to produce the item in question, you just need to know that someone wants it. And the fact that there is a market for something should not be patentable. > Once again I find it bemusing that a startup-oriented community doesn't get this. I doubt that anyone doesn't understand this. What's happened is a nuanced view has developed over the years. - People can see that IP is in the first place not easily attributable. Ideas are like nature: they mix together, things are added and removed by different people, new ideas are formed on top of old ones. You don't need to actually make a product to get a patent but if you're first at the PTO you can ride on everyone who does make a product. Doesn't seem right. - What was thought to be protecting the little guy is doing the opposite. If you're a little guy, most likely you are the employee of some firm that makes you put all your patents in their name. If you want to go on your own, good luck with the lawyers. If you look at your average success story here on HN, try to categorize them: The firm created some item that was patented and turned it into a major success on the back of that patent, or the firm found some market that was probably already not virgin, and managed to address it without particular importance of some patent. - Patent seem to be abused easily. I did a patent a few years ago and the day it got issued the guys I was working with started talking about finding a good patent troll lawyer. It seems the system has created an unhealthy culture. > Ultimately most anti-IP arguments boil down to "I want to be paid for what I create but I want what everyone else creates for free". That's not sustainable. No, they don't. If what is created is easily duplicated (eg general knowledge like the area of a circle) then why should it be paid for? I want to be paid if I'm going to paint someone's circular table, because I can only paint so many in my working life. But if I invented A = pi * r * r, which all the painters need, should I be paid? > Also speaking of croissants Yes, that was my inspiration. Ultimately, where you stand on this depends this: Is it a question of recognizing what effort people have put in, "costs, investment", of invention, or is the important thing what consumers get out, "value"? And that is why the HN crowd leans the way it does.
- charleslmunger 9y ago
  "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Software patents do not further progress. Neither do retroactive copyright extensions. Our current atttude on IP law has shifted entirely to rent seeking.

by gaius 9y ago

lordnacho 9y ago

> In general, IP laws are a recognition of the phenomenon that making something for the first time is difficult and/or expensive, but once it exists it is cheap to reproduce. You are mixing up a number of things into "IP Laws". Some things make sense, others do not. - For instance, it's perfectly reasonable that people who make some product can do so under their own brand without other people pretending to be the same brand. We can't have some new entrant calling themselves McDonalds and selling Big Macs. - Patents are indeed meant to address the issue you are on about. But the "invention" of cheeseburger + croissant is not hard to produce for the first time. In this case the patent is pretending to be doing something difficult, but what it's actually protecting is the first person who happens to test some random market (what about chicken wings + marmite?). And that is the distinction you need to be thinking about. Another example of this was the lawsuit about the "rubber band" effect on UIs. In no way is it hard to produce the item in question, you just need to know that someone wants it. And the fact that there is a market for something should not be patentable. > Once again I find it bemusing that a startup-oriented community doesn't get this. I doubt that anyone doesn't understand this. What's happened is a nuanced view has developed over the years. - People can see that IP is in the first place not easily attributable. Ideas are like nature: they mix together, things are added and removed by different people, new ideas are formed on top of old ones. You don't need to actually make a product to get a patent but if you're first at the PTO you can ride on everyone who does make a product. Doesn't seem right. - What was thought to be protecting the little guy is doing the opposite. If you're a little guy, most likely you are the employee of some firm that makes you put all your patents in their name. If you want to go on your own, good luck with the lawyers. If you look at your average success story here on HN, try to categorize them: The firm created some item that was patented and turned it into a major success on the back of that patent, or the firm found some market that was probably already not virgin, and managed to address it without particular importance of some patent. - Patent seem to be abused easily. I did a patent a few years ago and the day it got issued the guys I was working with started talking about finding a good patent troll lawyer. It seems the system has created an unhealthy culture. > Ultimately most anti-IP arguments boil down to "I want to be paid for what I create but I want what everyone else creates for free". That's not sustainable. No, they don't. If what is created is easily duplicated (eg general knowledge like the area of a circle) then why should it be paid for? I want to be paid if I'm going to paint someone's circular table, because I can only paint so many in my working life. But if I invented A = pi * r * r, which all the painters need, should I be paid? > Also speaking of croissants Yes, that was my inspiration. Ultimately, where you stand on this depends this: Is it a question of recognizing what effort people have put in, "costs, investment", of invention, or is the important thing what consumers get out, "value"? And that is why the HN crowd leans the way it does.

charleslmunger 9y ago
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Software patents do not further progress. Neither do retroactive copyright extensions. Our current atttude on IP law has shifted entirely to rent seeking.