3 ms·

The cost of creating artificial exclusivity, enforced by the state against natural human learning/discovering capabilities, is even higher.

pnw_hazor 8y ago
Patents cover stuff that is already invented and put into public use. How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Patents may stop someone from on purpose or accidentally copying someone else invention, but that isn't stopping discovery.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  People spend resources trying to discover things because they want to use them. If it turns out that when you go to use your invention, a patent troll jumps out from under the bridge to shake you down, people will be less inclined to spend resources trying to invent new things to use and instead just stick to the status quo.
- dahauns 8y ago
  This makes sense when the price for discovery itself is very high compared to putting it into use. In many fields (especially IT/software/algorithms), the discovery/invention often isn't the main part of work (especially not when you look at what are the actual claims of many inventions in those fields), but creating a good implementation and/or improving on it. There's a reason that software and algorithms weren't deemed patentable for a long time (and still aren't in certain jurisdictions - at least on paper).
- AmIFirstToThink 8y ago
  >How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Territorial claims, artificially created and maintained at tax-payer expense. Most patents are straight forward implementations that people would have come up with on their own. Patent system gives first mover advantage to those filing the claim with patent office. They have started now to give preference to those who file first, over those who can show they invented it first. Goes to show the intention of the system, create an unnatural monetized system over what comes naturally to people... solving their problem with what they know and what they can learn and what they can come up with. If one person solves a problem and files a patent, then in the IntellectualProperty land grab, it doesn't matter how easy the solution was, that person is now entitled to ask for money from anyone else who faces the same problem. The wheel, the canals, the sewer system, the river wheel it all spread without patent system. The patent system should come up with a "senior year graduate" challenge. If the kids in final year of college in that field can come up with similar solution comparable to the patent filing, then the patent is invalidated for being obvious. Amazon 'one-click' wouldn't ever have become a patent with this, as it was obvious use of browser cookies. True invention should be rewarded, not chance occurrence of you coming face to face with a problem before anyone else.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

Patents cover stuff that is already invented and put into public use. How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Patents may stop someone from on purpose or accidentally copying someone else invention, but that isn't stopping discovery.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
People spend resources trying to discover things because they want to use them. If it turns out that when you go to use your invention, a patent troll jumps out from under the bridge to shake you down, people will be less inclined to spend resources trying to invent new things to use and instead just stick to the status quo.
dahauns 8y ago
This makes sense when the price for discovery itself is very high compared to putting it into use. In many fields (especially IT/software/algorithms), the discovery/invention often isn't the main part of work (especially not when you look at what are the actual claims of many inventions in those fields), but creating a good implementation and/or improving on it. There's a reason that software and algorithms weren't deemed patentable for a long time (and still aren't in certain jurisdictions - at least on paper).
AmIFirstToThink 8y ago
>How does that go against natural learning/discovery? Territorial claims, artificially created and maintained at tax-payer expense. Most patents are straight forward implementations that people would have come up with on their own. Patent system gives first mover advantage to those filing the claim with patent office. They have started now to give preference to those who file first, over those who can show they invented it first. Goes to show the intention of the system, create an unnatural monetized system over what comes naturally to people... solving their problem with what they know and what they can learn and what they can come up with. If one person solves a problem and files a patent, then in the IntellectualProperty land grab, it doesn't matter how easy the solution was, that person is now entitled to ask for money from anyone else who faces the same problem. The wheel, the canals, the sewer system, the river wheel it all spread without patent system. The patent system should come up with a "senior year graduate" challenge. If the kids in final year of college in that field can come up with similar solution comparable to the patent filing, then the patent is invalidated for being obvious. Amazon 'one-click' wouldn't ever have become a patent with this, as it was obvious use of browser cookies. True invention should be rewarded, not chance occurrence of you coming face to face with a problem before anyone else.