3 ms·

I'm against software patents but patents were not intended "to solve the opposite problem" (expensive manufacture & distribution and cheap invention). They wer

I'm against software patents but patents were not intended "to solve the opposite problem" (expensive manufacture & distribution and cheap invention). They were intended to solve the problem of technological progress being hindered by trade secrets that never come into the public domain. If you couldn't protect your recipe for making a life saving drug, no one else could make it even if you decided not to anymore or went out of business. From the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8): "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."

squirrelicus 8y ago
I think it's easy to argue that there is some value in encouraging the publication of said inventions after the patent expiration date, but your argument is incorrect. The problem was when the Doc invents the flux capacitor in his workshop, he needs to go to GeneralIntelectric Corp, pitch his invention, and disclose his scematics for a beta production run . Without patents, the Doc doesn't have a comprehensive and cheap legal protection from the megacorp just saying no and stealing his thing. Sure, if the Doc had more money, he could invest in a legal team to get him this protection, but it would probably involve publicly filing details of his invention anyway, thus emulating a shittier version of patents.