5 ms·

The answer is not quite correct. Corporate protectionism is what destroys innovation. Abuse of the patent and copyright systems is part of corporate protectioni

by bugsy 16y ago

The answer is not quite correct. Corporate protectionism is what destroys innovation. Abuse of the patent and copyright systems is part of corporate protectionism. Patent and copyright are great things to protect the little innovator guy that starts a new business from being sodomized by the big corporations that lobby congress for laws that benefit only themselves. Reform is necessary. Right now, companies are patenting things that were invented by other people. Right now, little people with patents are getting their IP stolen from big corporations with lawyers who file legal action solely for the purpose of bankrupting the little guy and taking his property. These things are not a problem with the concept of protecting innovations through IP law. They are a problem with corporate abuse of the system and a corrupt government.

zipdog 16y ago
Except that software patents don't even function for the little guy, because even if it was only 'little guys' using software patents, it would cost too much to check your code against every other existing patent
- bugsy 16y ago
  Well the system doesn't work at all for the little guy. I was talking patent/copyright in general. As far as software patents, my own opinion is software is obviously copyrightable but not patentable. However, that is not the current viewpoint legally, and this serves the interests of big entities not small ones. I support IP rights. But the current system is seriously broken. Let's say I invent something totally new and innovative (which I have done many times). And I choose not to patent it. So my competitor reverse engineers my product and then patents it and sues me. What now? I can tell you because this is exact thing has happened to me. I get sued and the court case will take 5 years and require calling costly expert witnesses and the jury won't understand a word of the testimony and will flip a coin in the end. Regardless of what their decision is, I am bankrupt and the big company only spent 0.01% of revenue, and in return they got to buy what IP assets I had in bankruptcy court. Wow, that is messed up. So let's rewind. Not getting a patent was a big mistake clearly. So let's say I got a patent. Or not just say, since I have done this one too. Now the next company says "we want to license it". I agree to this and they then hire me to create an implementation of the licensed patent which will work with their product. Then, after this is done and working and they have sold it to clients at a huge profit, they fire me and tell me I have to transfer ownership of the patent to them if I want my job back. When I refuse they start creating legal problems for me that costs tens of thousands of dollars to deal with and take me out of the employment pool for a year, and after all that their company goes bankrupt, their IP is sold to a bigger company in bankruptcy court, and then THAT company (Fortune 100) re-patents the things I have already patented and serves me with a cease and desist. So if I get a patent or don't get a patent, me, the guy inventing awesome new things that benefit humanity, is damned either way because of corporate abuse of the system. The only answer is to stop innovating or to become a corporate parasite that steals things. The problem in all this is not with the concept of patents or copyright but that the way it works in practice is to enable the powerful to squash small innovators who are actually doing useful stuff.
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    > The problem in all this is not with the concept of patents or copyright but that the way it works in practice is to enable the powerful to squash small innovators who are actually doing useful stuff. If an idea can't work in practice then doesn't that make it a bad idea regardless of how pretty it is?
    - Vivtek 16y ago
      But patents did, and do, work in practice - in fields where they're appropriate, and for a couple of centuries. You could argue that their term is too long or that they're badly misapplied, but the alternative to a patent system is a system of trade secrets and reverse engineering, which still favor the big companies at the expense of innovation. The patent system should be adjusted, but not thrown out with the bath water.
      - Qz 16y ago
        They worked in the centuries before the internet. The internet is not going away. The patent system will have to.
        Vivtek 16y ago
        I'm ... really not sure I buy that. I'll have to think about it.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Check out this book by two professors from Cambridge: http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280?tag=duckduckgo-d-20 http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-... They've also made it available online, of course. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
        16y ago
marshray 16y ago
Patent and copyright are great things to protect the little innovator guy that starts a new business I think you read that in a book somewhere. I bet you don't personally know a single "little innovator guy" who has successfully been protected by a patent.
- pyre 16y ago
  True enough. If someone violates the patent, the Feds don't come in and bust them. The 'little guy' then has to take the violator to court and win before they can get any kind of justice. If it isn't a slam dunk (even with a patent), then the 'little guy' probably can't justify the risk of losing and ending up with the lawyer/court fees.
- rick888 16y ago
  "I bet you don't personally know a single "little innovator guy" who has successfully been protected by a patent." I know plenty. My last boss being one of them. His product was copied by a competitor (the entire design) and sold under a different name. It got so bad that people were calling up think we were this company and it hurt sales overall. He sued them in court, won, and actually got the entire company as a settlement (in addition to around $500,000. His product was simple enough to copy and without legal protections, a much larger company would could easily steal his entire market share.
  - marshray 16y ago
    You appear to be someone else. It does happen from time to time. Out of curiosity, what industry/market was this? How big was the company? Have any idea how much the lawsuit cost?

by bugsy 16y ago

zipdog 16y ago

Except that software patents don't even function for the little guy, because even if it was only 'little guys' using software patents, it would cost too much to check your code against every other existing patent

bugsy 16y ago
Well the system doesn't work at all for the little guy. I was talking patent/copyright in general. As far as software patents, my own opinion is software is obviously copyrightable but not patentable. However, that is not the current viewpoint legally, and this serves the interests of big entities not small ones. I support IP rights. But the current system is seriously broken. Let's say I invent something totally new and innovative (which I have done many times). And I choose not to patent it. So my competitor reverse engineers my product and then patents it and sues me. What now? I can tell you because this is exact thing has happened to me. I get sued and the court case will take 5 years and require calling costly expert witnesses and the jury won't understand a word of the testimony and will flip a coin in the end. Regardless of what their decision is, I am bankrupt and the big company only spent 0.01% of revenue, and in return they got to buy what IP assets I had in bankruptcy court. Wow, that is messed up. So let's rewind. Not getting a patent was a big mistake clearly. So let's say I got a patent. Or not just say, since I have done this one too. Now the next company says "we want to license it". I agree to this and they then hire me to create an implementation of the licensed patent which will work with their product. Then, after this is done and working and they have sold it to clients at a huge profit, they fire me and tell me I have to transfer ownership of the patent to them if I want my job back. When I refuse they start creating legal problems for me that costs tens of thousands of dollars to deal with and take me out of the employment pool for a year, and after all that their company goes bankrupt, their IP is sold to a bigger company in bankruptcy court, and then THAT company (Fortune 100) re-patents the things I have already patented and serves me with a cease and desist. So if I get a patent or don't get a patent, me, the guy inventing awesome new things that benefit humanity, is damned either way because of corporate abuse of the system. The only answer is to stop innovating or to become a corporate parasite that steals things. The problem in all this is not with the concept of patents or copyright but that the way it works in practice is to enable the powerful to squash small innovators who are actually doing useful stuff.
- tbrownaw 16y ago
  > The problem in all this is not with the concept of patents or copyright but that the way it works in practice is to enable the powerful to squash small innovators who are actually doing useful stuff. If an idea can't work in practice then doesn't that make it a bad idea regardless of how pretty it is?
  - Vivtek 16y ago
    But patents did, and do, work in practice - in fields where they're appropriate, and for a couple of centuries. You could argue that their term is too long or that they're badly misapplied, but the alternative to a patent system is a system of trade secrets and reverse engineering, which still favor the big companies at the expense of innovation. The patent system should be adjusted, but not thrown out with the bath water.
    - Qz 16y ago
      They worked in the centuries before the internet. The internet is not going away. The patent system will have to.
      - Vivtek 16y ago
        I'm ... really not sure I buy that. I'll have to think about it.
        steveklabnik 16y ago
        Check out this book by two professors from Cambridge: http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-Boldrin/dp/0521879280?tag=duckduckgo-d-20 http://www.amazon.com/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-Michele-... They've also made it available online, of course. http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
        16y ago

marshray 16y ago

Patent and copyright are great things to protect the little innovator guy that starts a new business I think you read that in a book somewhere. I bet you don't personally know a single "little innovator guy" who has successfully been protected by a patent.

pyre 16y ago
True enough. If someone violates the patent, the Feds don't come in and bust them. The 'little guy' then has to take the violator to court and win before they can get any kind of justice. If it isn't a slam dunk (even with a patent), then the 'little guy' probably can't justify the risk of losing and ending up with the lawyer/court fees.
rick888 16y ago
"I bet you don't personally know a single "little innovator guy" who has successfully been protected by a patent." I know plenty. My last boss being one of them. His product was copied by a competitor (the entire design) and sold under a different name. It got so bad that people were calling up think we were this company and it hurt sales overall. He sued them in court, won, and actually got the entire company as a settlement (in addition to around $500,000. His product was simple enough to copy and without legal protections, a much larger company would could easily steal his entire market share.
- marshray 16y ago
  You appear to be someone else. It does happen from time to time. Out of curiosity, what industry/market was this? How big was the company? Have any idea how much the lawsuit cost?