3 ms·
I think you're dismissing a lot of externalities here - IMO most egregious of which is ag-IP owners trying to claim ownership/control over other people's plants
by cwkoss 6y ago
I think you're dismissing a lot of externalities here - IMO most egregious of which is ag-IP owners trying to claim ownership/control over other people's plants that have been pollinated by their GMO plants due to pollen drift.
I think a better analogy would be: you invent a new mousetrap, you offer it for $5 for only catching mice, but if it catches a rat they owe you $100. The user has to artificially restrict the fundamental utility of the product or else be subject to legal penalties.
"Life, uh, finds a way" and it's morally hazardous to restrict a customer's control of their physical property for IP reasons.
- gruez 6y ago>IMO most egregious of which is ag-IP owners trying to claim ownership/control over other people's plants that have been pollinated by their GMO plants due to pollen drift. Addressed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24761841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24761841 >I think a better analogy would be: you invent a new mousetrap, you offer it for $5 for only catching mice, but if it catches a rat they owe you $100. The user has to artificially restrict the fundamental utility of the product or else be subject to legal penalties. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with this. If anything, I'm for it because it incentives the manufacturer to make effective products. The more effective their mouse trap is, the more money they make. Sounds like a good thing to me. It's not any different than unreal engine/unity charging you a % of your game's revenue as royalties.