6 ms·

» As someone who researches at a western company, this would actually get rid of a lot of research, because business moves so slow to commercialize due to the h

by mcny 7y ago

» As someone who researches at a western company, this would actually get rid of a lot of research, because business moves so slow to commercialize due to the highly regulated environment. I don't know about you but I'm perfectly ok with that.

mensetmanusman 7y ago
I like technological progress, but I would also be okay digging ditches in case our economy crashed towards a commodities-only enterprise, so I’m strange in that regards :)
- phkahler 7y ago
  Some people think patents are required for innovation. They are mistaken. It is human nature to innovate.
  - mensetmanusman 7y ago
    I agree, but it is not human nature to take their innovation to the world. Post WW2 the US govt had tens of thousands of technology patents but no one to bring it to the world. Patents are risk mitigation tools for funding entities to actually support commercialization. Innovation will happen always, but most of it stays on a dusty shelf a la an academic library. It’s not necessary that anything interesting and innovative (and sufficiently complex) gets sold.
    - phkahler 7y ago
      Patents exist to prevent the sale of innovations. The notion that I can't make a buck without a patent because someone else will undercut me may be true, but it also says that innovations will get to market without patents.
      - mensetmanusman 7y ago
        Yes, the enforcement is the manifestation of their use as a risk mitigation tool. Some innovations will get to market without patents, complex innovations requiring some threshold dollar amount will not find funding and will not (this was learned by the world of govt. science policy over the last century).
  - jbay808 7y ago
    It is, and people would keep coming up with ideas. It would get a lot harder to put together a few hundred million dollars in funding to build the vacuum chambers, ovens, lithography machines, and other things you need to actually test your idea and get it working, though.

by mcny 7y ago

mensetmanusman 7y ago

I like technological progress, but I would also be okay digging ditches in case our economy crashed towards a commodities-only enterprise, so I’m strange in that regards :)

phkahler 7y ago
Some people think patents are required for innovation. They are mistaken. It is human nature to innovate.
- mensetmanusman 7y ago
  I agree, but it is not human nature to take their innovation to the world. Post WW2 the US govt had tens of thousands of technology patents but no one to bring it to the world. Patents are risk mitigation tools for funding entities to actually support commercialization. Innovation will happen always, but most of it stays on a dusty shelf a la an academic library. It’s not necessary that anything interesting and innovative (and sufficiently complex) gets sold.
  - phkahler 7y ago
    Patents exist to prevent the sale of innovations. The notion that I can't make a buck without a patent because someone else will undercut me may be true, but it also says that innovations will get to market without patents.
    - mensetmanusman 7y ago
      Yes, the enforcement is the manifestation of their use as a risk mitigation tool. Some innovations will get to market without patents, complex innovations requiring some threshold dollar amount will not find funding and will not (this was learned by the world of govt. science policy over the last century).
- jbay808 7y ago
  It is, and people would keep coming up with ideas. It would get a lot harder to put together a few hundred million dollars in funding to build the vacuum chambers, ovens, lithography machines, and other things you need to actually test your idea and get it working, though.