3 ms·
Your analogy makes no sense. Land is a scarce and finite resource. Land ownership is a zero sum game. Patents are arbitrary and there can be an infinite number
by choward 7y ago
Your analogy makes no sense. Land is a scarce and finite resource. Land ownership is a zero sum game. Patents are arbitrary and there can be an infinite number of them.
You don't need patents to build software but you need land for crops.
- freejazz 7y agoIt's not a "perfect" analogy, but what ever are? The patent is the land, not the crop. The products that can be produced with the patent are the crops, with which it is impossible to have without the patent. Think of it this way, you spend years cracking a new invention. You bring it to market. You immediately go out of business because a larger company takes your invention and sells it at half the price you can because they don't need to recoup your R&D costs. Without patents you cannot protect against this circumstance. Trade secrets don't protect against this because trade secrets don't protect against reverse-engineering whereas patents do. Patents are a temporary monopoly. Trade secrets can last indefinitely. Patents have a relatively short lifetime, though people do argue one still too-long for software.
- Viliam1234 7y agoAnother possible scenario: You spend years cracking a new invention. A company you are currently working for files a patent, and then fires you. You are no longer allowed to use the knowledge that is in your head. I think this scenario is more realistic.
- freejazz 7y agoIn this scenario, if they actually stole your invention without a valid IP assignment clause in your work agreement/contract, then the law absolutely provides a way for you to make this claim and enforce it via a court of law. Without the patent system, how exactly do you think the inventor would fare here?