5 ms·

I would say the motivation is important. We do not live in a society where one can simply do a lot of work and see nothing for it without consequence. The probl

I would say the motivation is important. We do not live in a society where one can simply do a lot of work and see nothing for it without consequence. The problem is not originally with intellectual property, the problem is that every person has to justify their right to exist, and they do that through acquiring money by some means, which means a big chunk of what they're doing has to be concerned with acquiring money. Things like research and innovation take a lot of time. We already have somewhat of this situation in reality. Many people involved in research a very poorly paid. Is it really resulting in better/faster research, or just people moving from academia to industry, and a lot of benefits pocketed by side actors? > If it does, it encourages the people who I don't want to be innovating in the first place. I.e., people who do not have lots of resources and need to figure out how to survive? You only want to see innovation from rich people with nice safety nets?

akqu 8y ago
The problem with intellectual property is that it favors the sum, rather than the rate, of innovation. Companies have a natural incentive not to innovate. Since you make profit by not spending the revenue of your previous innovation on new innovation. If you want to have continuous innovation the profit should instead be based on your rate of innovation. Meaning that you don't get a monopoly on past achievements. That is how you don't have to wait decades for new cars or rockets while people with spreadsheets calculate their most opportune moment to start innovating again.
- brownbat 8y ago
  It's weird how different graphics cards are from pharmaceuticals. Both have big startup and research costs, but GPUs are basically obsolete in a couple years, they run the supply out and constantly plan to move to the next model. Pharma you can do that, or build a portfolio and collect rents for a while. It's weird that patent durations are one sized fits all, even though how long you can capture value is completely dependent on the industry.
komali2 8y ago
In my mind, it boils down to an extremely simple question - if money didn't exist, and you didn't have to work to stay alive, would people do job x or job y? The answer for many jobs is yes. We know this because volunteers exist, personal projects exist, people help each other fix their roofs and cars and fridges, etc. In a society like this, things might move a little more slowly (probably we wouldn't have the airline or public Transit systems we have now), but things would absolutely still get done.
- projektir 8y ago
  > The answer for many jobs is yes. We know this because volunteers exist, personal projects exist, people help each other fix their roofs and cars and fridges, etc. Volunteers and especially personal projects really strike me as activities one undertakes when they have secondary means of survival and/or safety nets. The latter is commonly mentioned as problematic in terms of requiring GitHubs from job applicants. The existence of these people is not sufficient, we also have to prove that these people are not distributed in some highly biased way, which I suspect, they are. There could be a lot of consequence to such biases. For instance, software developers creating software that blind people can't use.
  - peterburkimsher 8y ago
    I've done personal projects precisely because I don't have another safety net. Posting my projects here on Hacker News gets attention, which might possibly lead to a job offer. (In practice this doesn't work all the time, but it's been more successful in the past than trying to cold-email HR departments). I think personal projects show my interests and skills better than interviews. On that note, I am looking for work, and I'll do your (2 month) project for free just to get a reference letter. The 2 month limit is because I'll be out of cash by then.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > For instance, software developers creating software that blind people can't use. I think you'll have much better luck with such things with the hobby group. Commercial software is done by focusing on tasks that make money. Blind people are unlikely to make you money, unless you fall under regulations that will fine you for not catering for this group. Hobby software is focused on making the actual artifact, the program, better. Getting it accessible to blind users is clearly making it better.
TACIXAT 8y ago
Where did you get that I want to only see innovation from rich people? I explain in the next sentence the type of people who I do not want in positions of power, those who take anti-competitive steps. I do not think that is at all synonymous with people who have no resources. You put those people in power and they fuck their workers. Anyway, even with temporary monopolies, the legal system is stacked in the favor of those with money, so I don't really see how that helps people with no resources.
incompatible 8y ago
There's nothing wrong with people getting paid for doing good work, and nothing wrong with that work being widely available, for free, to everybody who can use it. The problem is fixation on an economic system that simply doesn't work in every situation. Information shouldn't be packaged and artificially rationed just so that it can be crammed into a market model.
intended 8y ago
The thing is it’s not just people. Corporations are shifting copyright law to their favor. And as institutions they can do things that individuals can’t. Like aggregate content and become forces of nature in their own right.

akqu 8y ago

The problem with intellectual property is that it favors the sum, rather than the rate, of innovation. Companies have a natural incentive not to innovate. Since you make profit by not spending the revenue of your previous innovation on new innovation. If you want to have continuous innovation the profit should instead be based on your rate of innovation. Meaning that you don't get a monopoly on past achievements. That is how you don't have to wait decades for new cars or rockets while people with spreadsheets calculate their most opportune moment to start innovating again.

brownbat 8y ago
It's weird how different graphics cards are from pharmaceuticals. Both have big startup and research costs, but GPUs are basically obsolete in a couple years, they run the supply out and constantly plan to move to the next model. Pharma you can do that, or build a portfolio and collect rents for a while. It's weird that patent durations are one sized fits all, even though how long you can capture value is completely dependent on the industry.

komali2 8y ago

In my mind, it boils down to an extremely simple question - if money didn't exist, and you didn't have to work to stay alive, would people do job x or job y? The answer for many jobs is yes. We know this because volunteers exist, personal projects exist, people help each other fix their roofs and cars and fridges, etc. In a society like this, things might move a little more slowly (probably we wouldn't have the airline or public Transit systems we have now), but things would absolutely still get done.

projektir 8y ago
> The answer for many jobs is yes. We know this because volunteers exist, personal projects exist, people help each other fix their roofs and cars and fridges, etc. Volunteers and especially personal projects really strike me as activities one undertakes when they have secondary means of survival and/or safety nets. The latter is commonly mentioned as problematic in terms of requiring GitHubs from job applicants. The existence of these people is not sufficient, we also have to prove that these people are not distributed in some highly biased way, which I suspect, they are. There could be a lot of consequence to such biases. For instance, software developers creating software that blind people can't use.
- peterburkimsher 8y ago
  I've done personal projects precisely because I don't have another safety net. Posting my projects here on Hacker News gets attention, which might possibly lead to a job offer. (In practice this doesn't work all the time, but it's been more successful in the past than trying to cold-email HR departments). I think personal projects show my interests and skills better than interviews. On that note, I am looking for work, and I'll do your (2 month) project for free just to get a reference letter. The 2 month limit is because I'll be out of cash by then.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > For instance, software developers creating software that blind people can't use. I think you'll have much better luck with such things with the hobby group. Commercial software is done by focusing on tasks that make money. Blind people are unlikely to make you money, unless you fall under regulations that will fine you for not catering for this group. Hobby software is focused on making the actual artifact, the program, better. Getting it accessible to blind users is clearly making it better.

TACIXAT 8y ago

Where did you get that I want to only see innovation from rich people? I explain in the next sentence the type of people who I do not want in positions of power, those who take anti-competitive steps. I do not think that is at all synonymous with people who have no resources. You put those people in power and they fuck their workers. Anyway, even with temporary monopolies, the legal system is stacked in the favor of those with money, so I don't really see how that helps people with no resources.

incompatible 8y ago

There's nothing wrong with people getting paid for doing good work, and nothing wrong with that work being widely available, for free, to everybody who can use it. The problem is fixation on an economic system that simply doesn't work in every situation. Information shouldn't be packaged and artificially rationed just so that it can be crammed into a market model.

intended 8y ago

The thing is it’s not just people. Corporations are shifting copyright law to their favor. And as institutions they can do things that individuals can’t. Like aggregate content and become forces of nature in their own right.