4 ms·
So? This is just rich people whining about someone else being able to make their products much cheaper. The whole world benefits from this, just not already su
by prolikewh0a 8y ago
So?
This is just rich people whining about someone else being able to make their products much cheaper. The whole world benefits from this, just not already super rich patent & trademark holders who are anti-competitive & hurt consumers.
Can anyone even tell me a negative that isn't just capital?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- shrewduser 8y agoBy that logic why have IP at all why bother protecting investments in new technology and inventions. the system isn't perfect but you're saying that there's no merit in it whatsoever.
- shittyadmin 8y agoThis distinctly isn't IP in any real way - it's not trademarkable or patentable.
- ridgeguy 8y agoThere's more to IP than trademarks and patents. You skipped over trade secrets.
- thaumasiotes 8y agoSo, the purpose of granting patents is that companies will take the temporary protection and put their techniques into the public record, preventing the technological loss that occurs when the only people who know a secret accidentally die. What's the idea behind legal protection for trade secrets?
- ridgeguy 8y agoLegal protection of trade secrets gives the trade secret owner the right to sue if someone steals the secret. So if employees of Coca-Cola conspire to steal the (trade) secret formulation for Coke, the company can sue them for damages. There can be criminal offenses as well. Trade secrets are used in situations where there's a secret (like some manufacturing process) that can't easily be reverse-engineered from the product. In that case, the owner can keep the secret as long as they wish. No patent to expire, no transfer of the IP to the public domain. For as long as the secret can be kept. Of course, there's no legal protection from reverse-engineering a trade secret. Somebody who RE'd Coke's formula would not only be free to use it but could patent it as well. The patent holder might even be able to sue Coke for patent infringement.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- shittyadmin 8y agoBecause trade secrets are not a respected form of IP. - Patents serve to provide a temporary shelter for monopolizing new ideas and methodologies to allow them to be developed - Trademarks serve to guarantee consumers can differentiate products and their producers - Copyright serves to allow people to make money from creative works while distributing them widely. Trade secrets? Trade secrets allow a company to monopolize a market with no benefit to the public in the long run. They deserve exactly zero legal protections.
- ridgeguy 8y agoThe U.S. patent office disagrees with you and notes that the U.S is obligated to protect trade secrets [1]. The Coca-Cola company and defendants Williams and Dimson might differ, as well [2]. [1] https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-protection/trade-secret-policy https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/international-... [2] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1234095.html https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1234095.html
- prolikewh0a 8y agoThere is no merit. It's for capital only. Almost everything should be public domain. What real negative effect does the OP article have on society? None, it's actually likely beneficial, just again not for the already super wealthy.
- kodablah 8y ago> There is no merit. It's for capital Sounds like a self-contradictory position to the vast majority that consider capital as merit.
- hueving 8y ago>What real negative effect does the OP article have on society? All capital intensive innovation (i.e. anything hardware related) effectively comes to a full stop. The potential returns on capital are the only reason people invest in these companies in the first place. It takes a shocking amount of mental gymnastics to think billions are going to be spent trying new technologies if second comers can just steal the working result for free.
- booleandilemma 8y agoThis is just rich people whining about someone else being able to make their products much cheaper. Stealing is stealing though, isn't it? Regardless of who benefits.
- prolikewh0a 8y agoWhat are they stealing? Ideas? Thoughts?
- FullyFunctional 8y agoIs this a serious question? They are stealing results of very long and expensive R&D, commonly know as Intellectual Property, or "IP". Producing this locally would require a sufficient mass of experience talent and lots of time and money. It might not even be possible to catch up. The fact that this is being stolen from Micron who presumably weren't blind to the value of their IP make it all the more frighting. None of the companies I have worked for in the past few decades would have had any chance of resisting a motivated thief as locking down knowledge runs counter to fostering innovation.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago>They are stealing results of very long and expensive R&D, commonly know as Intellectual Property, or "IP". Producing this locally would require a sufficient mass of experience talent and lots of time and money. It might not even be possible to catch up. Can you tell me how stealing these results is actually a negative to society? Is it just a negative to already extremely wealthy individuals? I'm finding no negative here and nobody is really giving me anything other than capital.
- toomuchtodo 8y agoIf capital is required for innovation, and capital won't invest when that innovation can't provide a return, it is a negative to society.