5 ms·

What would be my incentive for fixing something if I earn no money from it? From big companies to the lone worker, if IP is not a thing, I don't see how we can

What would be my incentive for fixing something if I earn no money from it? From big companies to the lone worker, if IP is not a thing, I don't see how we can evolve technology. I agree with the idea of not patenting software, since that is already covered by copyright, and patents were never intended to cover algorithms, however, discarding IP altogether seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

sarcasmOrTears 8y ago
Even if something is allowed to be done by everybody it doesn't mean it can be done by everybody. Just look at programming. Lack of ip(patents) shifts the power from those with patents+lawyers to those with skills (workers). Innovators, even when they are a group, are always okay because they have the skills to perform.
- est31 8y ago
  Copyright had been created in the first place so that people with printing presses couldn't just copy popular stuff to get a chunk of the market for some work without compensating the creator. Lack of IP doesn't shift the power to innovators, it shifts it to the people with printing presses, with large manufacturing plants that can scale, apple music, etc etc. IP is the very basis for compensation of innovators.
  - Drakim 8y ago
    The issue is that the reach of IP is so incredibly wide. It makes sense that if you make a comic book about a superhero named Jumpman, printing presses shouldn't be able to just 1:1 copy your product and sell it. They also shoudln't be able to use your Jumpman character in their own works. But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device. The only reason we have anything public at all is because most of these inventions happened before the dawn of oppressive IP laws.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device. You can't, in fact, copyright any of those things. Were they novel, the first two might be the kind of thing to qualify for utility patents, and the last is presumably a loose description of an actual Apple design patent.
    - est31 8y ago
      > The issue is that the reach of IP is so incredibly wide. I fully agree. Software patents for example should be abolished, and we should get shorter terms on copyright (20 years after death of creator or 80 years after publication, whatever comes sooner would be a good choice). But the very basic concept of copyright and patent law is still good for the individual creators as well as the commons. Abolishing it does not benefit the creators in general, and only shifts power away from them.
  - hrktb 8y ago
    Not disagreeing, but hasn’t the power shifted to people with printing presses either way ? I mean that producers are now strongly bound to distributors, and companies like Disney basically own everything from top to mostly bottom (they’re getting there with their streaming service). In today’s world I don’t see “little guys” getting practical benefits by virtue of IP. Is there still a baby in the bath water?
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Yes, as you intimate the forerunner to the Statue of Anne, the Licensing of the Press Act, was concerned with restricting who was allowed to own the means to print, and what was allowed to be printed. But I don't think copyright amendments have been about protecting creators, or the public domain, for some time.
  - chongli 8y ago
    Copyright had been created in the first place so that people with printing presses couldn't just copy popular stuff to get a chunk of the market for some work without compensating the creator. Not true. Copyright originally existed to give governments control over owners of presses in an effort to stop printing of dissenting material. It had nothing to do with compensation for authors.
    - ionised 8y ago
      And in that sense, the purpose of copyright has never changed. It is still used to decide who gets access to what information, with all the complicated licensing arrangements and insane life of author plus 70 years terms.
est31 8y ago
Yeah, both extremes "all IP is bad" and "we must patent every product even if it brings nothing new to the table" are wrong. The devil is, as in so many cases, in the detail.
- NicoJuicy 8y ago
  True, some companies use it to troll. But this case is exactly the reason why it should exist. Yes, it should get tweaked a little bit though
kartickv 8y ago
> What would be my incentive for fixing something if I earn no money from it? Your incentive would be that your product is better and sells more, unless and until everyone copies it. As long as the extra profit exceeds the cost invested, it's worth it. You're claiming there would be no innovation at all unless there's IP. How did we innovate for hundreds or thousands of years before IP laws, whether the wheel, ironmaking or any other technology? To flip your question on its head, if IP laws prevent your innovation from reaching everyone, the benefit to society from this innovation is reduced, and that's bad.
- dgudkov 8y ago
  >Your incentive would be that your product is better and sells more I'm curious if you ever tried to sell anything in large volumes. You can invent a brilliant thing but still have hard times selling it because of a lack of resources for marketing and a lack of established sales channels. At the same time, big resourceful corporations just steal you invention and resell it to existing customer base, use huge marketing resources, benefit from brand awareness, etc. Inventing something better doesn't automatically guarantee you a solid revenue stream. Monetizing good inventions for a small company is a way less trivial task than it might seem.
  - kartickv 8y ago
    I do have experience with how hard marketing is, but big companies copying small companies' work is not the only application of IP laws. Big companies can copy other big companies' work, and small companies can copy big companies' work. Besides, many small guys — independent developers, three-person teams — don't even have the resources to patent their stuff. Which means patent laws disproportionately benefit big companies.
    - unityByFreedom 8y ago
      > Besides, many small guys — independent developers, three-person teams — don't even have the resources to patent their stuff. Which means patent laws disproportionately benefit big companies. Are you talking about software patents?

sarcasmOrTears 8y ago

Even if something is allowed to be done by everybody it doesn't mean it can be done by everybody. Just look at programming. Lack of ip(patents) shifts the power from those with patents+lawyers to those with skills (workers). Innovators, even when they are a group, are always okay because they have the skills to perform.

est31 8y ago
Copyright had been created in the first place so that people with printing presses couldn't just copy popular stuff to get a chunk of the market for some work without compensating the creator. Lack of IP doesn't shift the power to innovators, it shifts it to the people with printing presses, with large manufacturing plants that can scale, apple music, etc etc. IP is the very basis for compensation of innovators.
- Drakim 8y ago
  The issue is that the reach of IP is so incredibly wide. It makes sense that if you make a comic book about a superhero named Jumpman, printing presses shouldn't be able to just 1:1 copy your product and sell it. They also shoudln't be able to use your Jumpman character in their own works. But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device. The only reason we have anything public at all is because most of these inventions happened before the dawn of oppressive IP laws.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > But we have moved so far that you can copyright generic things like the very concept of a comic book. Or having a HTML image that's also a link. Or having round corners on a mobile device. You can't, in fact, copyright any of those things. Were they novel, the first two might be the kind of thing to qualify for utility patents, and the last is presumably a loose description of an actual Apple design patent.
  - est31 8y ago
    > The issue is that the reach of IP is so incredibly wide. I fully agree. Software patents for example should be abolished, and we should get shorter terms on copyright (20 years after death of creator or 80 years after publication, whatever comes sooner would be a good choice). But the very basic concept of copyright and patent law is still good for the individual creators as well as the commons. Abolishing it does not benefit the creators in general, and only shifts power away from them.
- hrktb 8y ago
  Not disagreeing, but hasn’t the power shifted to people with printing presses either way ? I mean that producers are now strongly bound to distributors, and companies like Disney basically own everything from top to mostly bottom (they’re getting there with their streaming service). In today’s world I don’t see “little guys” getting practical benefits by virtue of IP. Is there still a baby in the bath water?
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Yes, as you intimate the forerunner to the Statue of Anne, the Licensing of the Press Act, was concerned with restricting who was allowed to own the means to print, and what was allowed to be printed. But I don't think copyright amendments have been about protecting creators, or the public domain, for some time.
- chongli 8y ago
  Copyright had been created in the first place so that people with printing presses couldn't just copy popular stuff to get a chunk of the market for some work without compensating the creator. Not true. Copyright originally existed to give governments control over owners of presses in an effort to stop printing of dissenting material. It had nothing to do with compensation for authors.
  - ionised 8y ago
    And in that sense, the purpose of copyright has never changed. It is still used to decide who gets access to what information, with all the complicated licensing arrangements and insane life of author plus 70 years terms.

est31 8y ago

Yeah, both extremes "all IP is bad" and "we must patent every product even if it brings nothing new to the table" are wrong. The devil is, as in so many cases, in the detail.

NicoJuicy 8y ago
True, some companies use it to troll. But this case is exactly the reason why it should exist. Yes, it should get tweaked a little bit though

kartickv 8y ago

> What would be my incentive for fixing something if I earn no money from it? Your incentive would be that your product is better and sells more, unless and until everyone copies it. As long as the extra profit exceeds the cost invested, it's worth it. You're claiming there would be no innovation at all unless there's IP. How did we innovate for hundreds or thousands of years before IP laws, whether the wheel, ironmaking or any other technology? To flip your question on its head, if IP laws prevent your innovation from reaching everyone, the benefit to society from this innovation is reduced, and that's bad.

dgudkov 8y ago
>Your incentive would be that your product is better and sells more I'm curious if you ever tried to sell anything in large volumes. You can invent a brilliant thing but still have hard times selling it because of a lack of resources for marketing and a lack of established sales channels. At the same time, big resourceful corporations just steal you invention and resell it to existing customer base, use huge marketing resources, benefit from brand awareness, etc. Inventing something better doesn't automatically guarantee you a solid revenue stream. Monetizing good inventions for a small company is a way less trivial task than it might seem.
- kartickv 8y ago
  I do have experience with how hard marketing is, but big companies copying small companies' work is not the only application of IP laws. Big companies can copy other big companies' work, and small companies can copy big companies' work. Besides, many small guys — independent developers, three-person teams — don't even have the resources to patent their stuff. Which means patent laws disproportionately benefit big companies.
  - unityByFreedom 8y ago
    > Besides, many small guys — independent developers, three-person teams — don't even have the resources to patent their stuff. Which means patent laws disproportionately benefit big companies. Are you talking about software patents?