6 ms·

IP laws are bad because they have been taken past any sane limit. However the original terms would are not too onerous, with provisions and updates there is no

by konjin 6y ago

IP laws are bad because they have been taken past any sane limit. However the original terms would are not too onerous, with provisions and updates there is no reason not to give the people who invent things short and clear monopolies on their ideas. 15 years is plenty of time, then everything needs to be released into the public domain.

krapp 6y ago
>with provisions and updates there is no reason not to give the people who invent things short and clear monopolies on their ideas. The lack of a monopoly creates competition which accelerates innovation and leads to cheaper, higher quality products for the consumer. The person who invents a product should simply be one competitor in the market, they can have the first mover advantage, but shouldn't be allowed to control the market entirely. If we believe in the FOSS ethos that no one has the right to own software, even if they write it, then why would this only apply to software? Why not to all forms of intellectual property? Why do I have a moral right to fork, rewrite and redistribute Firefox but not Star Wars or Pfizer Pharmaceuticals?
- konjin 6y ago
  >If we believe in the FOSS ethos I don't. So what now?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - krapp 6y ago
    You can sit down and let someone less pedantic take the floor.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > The lack of a monopoly creates competition which accelerates innovation and leads to cheaper, higher quality products for the consumer. The person who invents a product should simply be one competitor in the market, they can have the first mover advantage, but shouldn't be allowed to control the market entirely. But that obviously wouldn't as work well, because: 1. The inventor would pay the R&D costs with no good way to recoup them, because he'd be competing against knockoffs who didn't have to make that investment, and can price accordingly. You'd be putting the actual inventor at a disadvantage. 2. There'd be no incentive for inventors to actually publish designs for their inventions. Most people who argue against patents as a concept forget is that to get one you have to publish plans for your idea openly, which makes it much easier to copy. The limited monopoly is an incentive to part with that information. You'd end up leaving the public domain poorer. 3. Invention and production are different skillsets. For an author to get paid for writing, they shouldn't need to own a printing press and distribution network. It's a good thing that good, successful authors can make their livings by writing and not always be forced to sustain themselves with a day job. The original ideas behind IP are very, very sounds. What we need is to roll back how the implementation of those ideas has been corrupted to society's detriment.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > 1. The inventor would pay the R&D costs with no good way to recoup them, because he'd be competing against knockoffs who didn't have to make that investment, and can price accordingly. You'd be putting the actual inventor at a disadvantage. Yes, the means of ensuring that research and development would be funded would have to change. This doesn't imply that there would be no r&d, rather the current r&d is being subsidized by laws that give legal privileges to certain corporations while prohibiting their competition from competing. > 2. There'd be no incentive for inventors to actually publish designs for their inventions. Most people who argue against patents as a concept forget is that to get one you have to publish plans for your idea openly, which makes it much easier to copy. The limited monopoly is an incentive to part with that information. You'd end up leaving the public domain poorer. You could pay them for the design. Or you could reverse engineer the design from the actual physical product. > 3. Invention and production are different skillsets. For an author to get paid for writing, they shouldn't need to own a printing press and distribution network. likewise people shouldn't be subject to violence for copying intangibles.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Maybe, instead of an exclusive monopoly, ownership of IP grants an inventor a share of revenue from any products using that IP for a limited time, like a royalty or a license. Then they could make money while the community innovates on their idea.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Maybe, instead of an exclusive monopoly, ownership of IP grants an inventor a share of revenue from any products using that IP for a limited time, like a royalty or a license. Then they could make money while the community innovates on their idea. I think that's a reasonable idea, and I believe it's called "compulsory licensing."
  - mordae 6y ago
    > 1. The inventor would pay the R&D costs with no good way to recoup them, because he'd be competing against knockoffs who didn't have to make that investment, and can price accordingly. You'd be putting the actual inventor at a disadvantage. So what? They would just need to sell the research at profit instead of subsidizing it with future monopoly revenue. Patents are nowadays written to obscure the research as much as possible anyway. And remember how putting a 3D printer in a box to keep the material warm has been patented? Suuuure, wouldn't get discovered independently.
breck 6y ago
Slavery laws are bad because they have been taken past any sane limit. However the original terms would are not too onerous, with provisions and updates there is no reason not to give the people with capital short and clear monopolies on their slaves. 15 years is plenty of time, then every slave needs to be released into the public domain.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  I feel like you're now describing student debt.

by konjin 6y ago

krapp 6y ago

>with provisions and updates there is no reason not to give the people who invent things short and clear monopolies on their ideas. The lack of a monopoly creates competition which accelerates innovation and leads to cheaper, higher quality products for the consumer. The person who invents a product should simply be one competitor in the market, they can have the first mover advantage, but shouldn't be allowed to control the market entirely. If we believe in the FOSS ethos that no one has the right to own software, even if they write it, then why would this only apply to software? Why not to all forms of intellectual property? Why do I have a moral right to fork, rewrite and redistribute Firefox but not Star Wars or Pfizer Pharmaceuticals?

konjin 6y ago
>If we believe in the FOSS ethos I don't. So what now?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- krapp 6y ago
  You can sit down and let someone less pedantic take the floor.
ardy42 6y ago
> The lack of a monopoly creates competition which accelerates innovation and leads to cheaper, higher quality products for the consumer. The person who invents a product should simply be one competitor in the market, they can have the first mover advantage, but shouldn't be allowed to control the market entirely. But that obviously wouldn't as work well, because: 1. The inventor would pay the R&D costs with no good way to recoup them, because he'd be competing against knockoffs who didn't have to make that investment, and can price accordingly. You'd be putting the actual inventor at a disadvantage. 2. There'd be no incentive for inventors to actually publish designs for their inventions. Most people who argue against patents as a concept forget is that to get one you have to publish plans for your idea openly, which makes it much easier to copy. The limited monopoly is an incentive to part with that information. You'd end up leaving the public domain poorer. 3. Invention and production are different skillsets. For an author to get paid for writing, they shouldn't need to own a printing press and distribution network. It's a good thing that good, successful authors can make their livings by writing and not always be forced to sustain themselves with a day job. The original ideas behind IP are very, very sounds. What we need is to roll back how the implementation of those ideas has been corrupted to society's detriment.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > 1. The inventor would pay the R&D costs with no good way to recoup them, because he'd be competing against knockoffs who didn't have to make that investment, and can price accordingly. You'd be putting the actual inventor at a disadvantage. Yes, the means of ensuring that research and development would be funded would have to change. This doesn't imply that there would be no r&d, rather the current r&d is being subsidized by laws that give legal privileges to certain corporations while prohibiting their competition from competing. > 2. There'd be no incentive for inventors to actually publish designs for their inventions. Most people who argue against patents as a concept forget is that to get one you have to publish plans for your idea openly, which makes it much easier to copy. The limited monopoly is an incentive to part with that information. You'd end up leaving the public domain poorer. You could pay them for the design. Or you could reverse engineer the design from the actual physical product. > 3. Invention and production are different skillsets. For an author to get paid for writing, they shouldn't need to own a printing press and distribution network. likewise people shouldn't be subject to violence for copying intangibles.
- krapp 6y ago
  Maybe, instead of an exclusive monopoly, ownership of IP grants an inventor a share of revenue from any products using that IP for a limited time, like a royalty or a license. Then they could make money while the community innovates on their idea.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Maybe, instead of an exclusive monopoly, ownership of IP grants an inventor a share of revenue from any products using that IP for a limited time, like a royalty or a license. Then they could make money while the community innovates on their idea. I think that's a reasonable idea, and I believe it's called "compulsory licensing."
- mordae 6y ago
  > 1. The inventor would pay the R&D costs with no good way to recoup them, because he'd be competing against knockoffs who didn't have to make that investment, and can price accordingly. You'd be putting the actual inventor at a disadvantage. So what? They would just need to sell the research at profit instead of subsidizing it with future monopoly revenue. Patents are nowadays written to obscure the research as much as possible anyway. And remember how putting a 3D printer in a box to keep the material warm has been patented? Suuuure, wouldn't get discovered independently.

breck 6y ago

Slavery laws are bad because they have been taken past any sane limit. However the original terms would are not too onerous, with provisions and updates there is no reason not to give the people with capital short and clear monopolies on their slaves. 15 years is plenty of time, then every slave needs to be released into the public domain.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
I feel like you're now describing student debt.