4 ms·

Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the

Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. There are certainly abuses in the copyright, trademark, and patent systems. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Identifying the abuses and improving the system is the answer. Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground.

balls187 6y ago
> Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. Changing patent length (pc's suggestion) is hardly seems like burning the whole thing to the ground. In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse, though it typically involves costly legal fees. Fees many cannot justify in spending. Addressing patent challenges may be a way to protect innovators, both those who should gain reward for their innovations, and those who seek to grain reward by building upon innovations.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse That's the key: In the U.S. Good luck stopping someone infringing on your patient in a good number of other countries.
dylan604 6y ago
> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. What it does do though is allow someone to start from zero, and catch up to the rest of the competition very fast and cheap. They can then offer their "product" cheaper in order to gain market share. As long as they are getting/keeping customers, there's no need to innovate. You can have a viable business without spending tons of cash on R&D, and if you're making money that way, who cares? *I am no way endorsing this kind of business model, but it exists and does well.
zucker42 6y ago
> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. For one, this claim suffers from a correlation/causation issue. But also, do you have an actual citation for research which shows this is true?
- waterhouse 6y ago
  Chapter 8 [1] of Against Intellectual Monopoly, "Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?" looks into this, including comparing countries with stronger patent laws vs weaker laws. The results seem pretty decidedly mixed. [1] http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf
rubber_duck 6y ago
>There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. Comparable examples being ?
vmception 6y ago
uh China is doing pretty awesome so thats one big massive outlier distorting the entire supposition
- WanderPanda 6y ago
  isn’t China still mostly piggybacking on foreign innovation?
  - vmception 6y ago
    I wouldn't say mostly. It happens and is a predictable thing that will happen with software and hardware. People also build their own things there. It is a very large market with multiple tech hubs, servicing itself.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    They have inveated in manufacturing, Solar, Nulcear and a number of other areas to the extent where they are now world leaders. You can debate relative merits, but if you rank countries it certai ly is doomg better than most.
m12k 6y ago
> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. That's not necessarily so - for example, during the industrial revolution, Germany largely overtook the British in mechanical engineering skill during a period where the British had copyright but before the Germans got it: https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/ https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/ Also, it's quite possible the causation goes the other way: A society might not succeed at innovation because of IP laws - it's just as possible that because a society has succeeded at innovation, it passes IP legislation, in order to 'kick away the ladder'. But just like regulatory capture shows in general, legislation that helps yesterday's winners seek rent is not necessarily the same (and is often in fact the opposite) of legislation to help tomorrow's winners see the light of day.
cure 6y ago
> There are certainly abuses in the copyright, trademark, and patent systems. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Identifying the abuses and improving the system is the answer. That sounds nice and reasonable, in theory. In practice, all the money is behind expanding the copyright and patent systems. When is the last time the duration of copyright terms was shortened? When is the last time the patent system was adapted to be less draconian and less protective of those poor, poor multinational corporations that somehow end up holding all those patents? Spoiler alert - that has happened exactly never. Instead, all we get is 'harmonization' which always means extending terms and giving those laws more teeth, to match the strictest law implemented anywhere in the world. Steamboat Willy's copyright expires January 1st, 2024. How much do you want to bet that Disney will be pushing for another copyright term extension before then? > Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. The current systems only ever get stricter. Where are the much shorter terms? Where is the recognition that cooperation and remixing fosters innovation and progress and as such should be encouraged, not punished? Where is the PTO following the actual law that says math and logic (i.e. software) are not patentable? Etc, etc, etc. The abuses have been very well documented over the past several decades. There has been zero progress on incremental improvements. Tell me again how you propose we improve the system without a drastic overhaul?
centimeter 6y ago
You've flipped the causal relationship - societies capable of rapid invention are also going to be more likely to be legalistic.
znpy 6y ago
> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. I'm not 100% sure about this. Just look at how hard China laughs at intellectual property and copyright in general and tell me if you still think the same. Not being burdened by expensive license fees is a competitive advantage. But then again, also not having to care about workers right is...

balls187 6y ago

> Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. Changing patent length (pc's suggestion) is hardly seems like burning the whole thing to the ground. In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse, though it typically involves costly legal fees. Fees many cannot justify in spending. Addressing patent challenges may be a way to protect innovators, both those who should gain reward for their innovations, and those who seek to grain reward by building upon innovations.

reaperducer 6y ago
In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse That's the key: In the U.S. Good luck stopping someone infringing on your patient in a good number of other countries.

dylan604 6y ago

> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. What it does do though is allow someone to start from zero, and catch up to the rest of the competition very fast and cheap. They can then offer their "product" cheaper in order to gain market share. As long as they are getting/keeping customers, there's no need to innovate. You can have a viable business without spending tons of cash on R&D, and if you're making money that way, who cares? *I am no way endorsing this kind of business model, but it exists and does well.

zucker42 6y ago

> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. For one, this claim suffers from a correlation/causation issue. But also, do you have an actual citation for research which shows this is true?

waterhouse 6y ago
Chapter 8 [1] of Against Intellectual Monopoly, "Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?" looks into this, including comparing countries with stronger patent laws vs weaker laws. The results seem pretty decidedly mixed. [1] http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf

rubber_duck 6y ago

>There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. Comparable examples being ?

vmception 6y ago

uh China is doing pretty awesome so thats one big massive outlier distorting the entire supposition

WanderPanda 6y ago
isn’t China still mostly piggybacking on foreign innovation?
- vmception 6y ago
  I wouldn't say mostly. It happens and is a predictable thing that will happen with software and hardware. People also build their own things there. It is a very large market with multiple tech hubs, servicing itself.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  They have inveated in manufacturing, Solar, Nulcear and a number of other areas to the extent where they are now world leaders. You can debate relative merits, but if you rank countries it certai ly is doomg better than most.

m12k 6y ago

> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. That's not necessarily so - for example, during the industrial revolution, Germany largely overtook the British in mechanical engineering skill during a period where the British had copyright but before the Germans got it: https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/ https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/ Also, it's quite possible the causation goes the other way: A society might not succeed at innovation because of IP laws - it's just as possible that because a society has succeeded at innovation, it passes IP legislation, in order to 'kick away the ladder'. But just like regulatory capture shows in general, legislation that helps yesterday's winners seek rent is not necessarily the same (and is often in fact the opposite) of legislation to help tomorrow's winners see the light of day.

cure 6y ago

> There are certainly abuses in the copyright, trademark, and patent systems. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Identifying the abuses and improving the system is the answer. That sounds nice and reasonable, in theory. In practice, all the money is behind expanding the copyright and patent systems. When is the last time the duration of copyright terms was shortened? When is the last time the patent system was adapted to be less draconian and less protective of those poor, poor multinational corporations that somehow end up holding all those patents? Spoiler alert - that has happened exactly never. Instead, all we get is 'harmonization' which always means extending terms and giving those laws more teeth, to match the strictest law implemented anywhere in the world. Steamboat Willy's copyright expires January 1st, 2024. How much do you want to bet that Disney will be pushing for another copyright term extension before then? > Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. The current systems only ever get stricter. Where are the much shorter terms? Where is the recognition that cooperation and remixing fosters innovation and progress and as such should be encouraged, not punished? Where is the PTO following the actual law that says math and logic (i.e. software) are not patentable? Etc, etc, etc. The abuses have been very well documented over the past several decades. There has been zero progress on incremental improvements. Tell me again how you propose we improve the system without a drastic overhaul?

centimeter 6y ago

You've flipped the causal relationship - societies capable of rapid invention are also going to be more likely to be legalistic.

znpy 6y ago

> There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. I'm not 100% sure about this. Just look at how hard China laughs at intellectual property and copyright in general and tell me if you still think the same. Not being burdened by expensive license fees is a competitive advantage. But then again, also not having to care about workers right is...