4 ms·

I think the idea behind intellectual property is to encourage people to take risks associated with developing something new and profit through their innovations

I think the idea behind intellectual property is to encourage people to take risks associated with developing something new and profit through their innovations. If all new discoveries were the property of the state/public then there wouldn't be a high incentive to be inventive for any given individual. It's like if everyone was a farmer but everything harvested was immediately taken from the farmer. Why would any farmer put in effort to increase yield when they would not profit from their extra effort?

ndnxhs 8y ago
Its unfortunate that out economical system discourages sharing and rewards those who act selfishly. If the farmers needs were taken care of, they would push to make better tech to make their lives easier and provide more food for the rest of their country.
- sovietmudkipz 8y ago
  The best system humans have come up with to meet the needs of the farmer is capitalism. Think of all the selfish actors whose countless innovations (big and small) go into making sure peoples needs are met. The irony of capitalism is that by each individual focusing on themselves society is the beneficiary. The farmers needs are more than met under capitalism than under any other economic system people have thought up (to date). That’s why innovation happens more in capitalist societies. Communism, as a counterpoint, is pinned on selflessness. Think of your brothers and your sisters! Work hard and freely give away your labor, for everyone will give you their labor. Think about the good of the nation! The irony is that this system minimizes innovation and maximizes a cruel society. Why should a capitalist society, whose individuals act for the good of themselves, have a stronger societial fabric than a communist society, whose individuals act for the good of society? Who knows, but I certainly am not willing to throw out such a proven system just because it’s raw “selfish” focus at the micro level makes people a little queasy.
naringas 8y ago
I think that if we got rid of those incentives people would still innovate
- tivert 8y ago
  > I think that if we got rid of those incentives people would still innovate Yes, but then they'd keep their innovations secret as trade secrets or they would only innovate when it was cheap and unrisky.
- peteradio 8y ago
  If someone stole their invention and made money off it?? Why the hell would anyone want to invest time into that? Its not like the Chinese are pursuing some ideology of free knowledge, no they are trying to scoop for profit.
  - baroffoos 8y ago
    Why do people work on open source or give up time for charity? Not everyone is focused purely on collecting more money when their needs are already covered.
    - tluyben2 8y ago
      > when their needs are already covered So few steps to go here then; many (by far most) inventors do not have that little detail so they rely on their invention being monetized to give them that. People in open source or charity often just have enough money/time to do that on the side, but most people do not. Needs basic income or working communism; both do not exist (yet or ever) so how would that work?
    - peteradio 8y ago
      Because they want to.
    - wushupork 8y ago
      Very few people work on open source. You will find that most people trade their hours for money.
jujulet 8y ago
> I think the idea behind intellectual property is to encourage people to take risks associated with developing something new and profit through their innovations. No, the idea is to prevent other people from profiting through 'claimed' innovations. > If all new discoveries were the property of the state/public then there wouldn't be a high incentive to be inventive for any given individual. Most innovation is not done for money. It's done by people with genuine interest in the subject, often earning less than an average professional in the field. The vast majority of valuable R&D for computer(s/ing) came, and still comes from the public sector. > It's like if everyone was a farmer but everything harvested was immediately taken from the farmer. Why is it that intellectual property proponents always try to make analogies using physical property? Copying != moving/deleting. If I was a farmer and along came some poor hungry people that saw me farming, learned from it, then went and farmed their own land, I would have no problem with that. > Why would any farmer put in effort to increase yield when they would not profit from their extra effort? If we're talking about innovation, then because it could make farming easier, safer, more enjoyable, healthier, etc.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ndnxhs 8y ago

Its unfortunate that out economical system discourages sharing and rewards those who act selfishly. If the farmers needs were taken care of, they would push to make better tech to make their lives easier and provide more food for the rest of their country.

sovietmudkipz 8y ago
The best system humans have come up with to meet the needs of the farmer is capitalism. Think of all the selfish actors whose countless innovations (big and small) go into making sure peoples needs are met. The irony of capitalism is that by each individual focusing on themselves society is the beneficiary. The farmers needs are more than met under capitalism than under any other economic system people have thought up (to date). That’s why innovation happens more in capitalist societies. Communism, as a counterpoint, is pinned on selflessness. Think of your brothers and your sisters! Work hard and freely give away your labor, for everyone will give you their labor. Think about the good of the nation! The irony is that this system minimizes innovation and maximizes a cruel society. Why should a capitalist society, whose individuals act for the good of themselves, have a stronger societial fabric than a communist society, whose individuals act for the good of society? Who knows, but I certainly am not willing to throw out such a proven system just because it’s raw “selfish” focus at the micro level makes people a little queasy.

naringas 8y ago

I think that if we got rid of those incentives people would still innovate

tivert 8y ago
> I think that if we got rid of those incentives people would still innovate Yes, but then they'd keep their innovations secret as trade secrets or they would only innovate when it was cheap and unrisky.
peteradio 8y ago
If someone stole their invention and made money off it?? Why the hell would anyone want to invest time into that? Its not like the Chinese are pursuing some ideology of free knowledge, no they are trying to scoop for profit.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Why do people work on open source or give up time for charity? Not everyone is focused purely on collecting more money when their needs are already covered.
  - tluyben2 8y ago
    > when their needs are already covered So few steps to go here then; many (by far most) inventors do not have that little detail so they rely on their invention being monetized to give them that. People in open source or charity often just have enough money/time to do that on the side, but most people do not. Needs basic income or working communism; both do not exist (yet or ever) so how would that work?
  - peteradio 8y ago
    Because they want to.
  - wushupork 8y ago
    Very few people work on open source. You will find that most people trade their hours for money.

jujulet 8y ago

> I think the idea behind intellectual property is to encourage people to take risks associated with developing something new and profit through their innovations. No, the idea is to prevent other people from profiting through 'claimed' innovations. > If all new discoveries were the property of the state/public then there wouldn't be a high incentive to be inventive for any given individual. Most innovation is not done for money. It's done by people with genuine interest in the subject, often earning less than an average professional in the field. The vast majority of valuable R&D for computer(s/ing) came, and still comes from the public sector. > It's like if everyone was a farmer but everything harvested was immediately taken from the farmer. Why is it that intellectual property proponents always try to make analogies using physical property? Copying != moving/deleting. If I was a farmer and along came some poor hungry people that saw me farming, learned from it, then went and farmed their own land, I would have no problem with that. > Why would any farmer put in effort to increase yield when they would not profit from their extra effort? If we're talking about innovation, then because it could make farming easier, safer, more enjoyable, healthier, etc.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]