3 ms·
> Uh, no, entrepreneurs would be stomped flat, having their ideas stolen and marketed by whomever the fastest mover was. That is how it works in theory. In rea
by Mediterraneo10 6y ago
> Uh, no, entrepreneurs would be stomped flat, having their ideas stolen and marketed by whomever the fastest mover was.
That is how it works in theory. In reality, large entrenched interests with a large budget for attorneys, and a war chest of their own patents that can be used offensively, can easily stomp over small entrepreneurs. At best, the small entrepreneur gets an invitation to settle.
- justinclift 6y agoDidn't one of the major current chocolate makers (Nestle?) get their start when patents stopped being a thing in their home country for a few years?
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoI didn't see any information on it, but it would make me wonder: Did this mean they got started because they stole someone else's idea, and then get to continue after patents were reintroduced?
- justinclift 6y agoYeah, read an article on it a few years ago, pointing out the hypocrisy of it. Not 100% sure the chocolate maker was Nestle, though the time frame fits. It could have been some other one, most likely Swiss or Dutch.
- Broken_Hippo 6y agoAt least small folks have a chance now. Not having patents just increases the chances that these places will use the attorney budget to make and market ideas from others, only this time, the small person doesn't have legal recourse. In other words, same outcome, different pathway. The real solution to the situation you described is to have a better, more fair patent system.