22 ms·
It needs regulation, but the core of this is that it means that if someone steals your stuff, you have recourse to stop them. On the macro scale, no company is
by KaiserPro 6y ago
It needs regulation, but the core of this is that it means that if someone steals your stuff, you have recourse to stop them.
On the macro scale, no company is going to invest billions upfront if they think there is a risk that someone is going to take your "IP" and undercut you. (the oxford vaccine is a case in point. THey were paid upfront regardless of outcome, on condition that if it was successful they wouldn't be able to mark up the price.)
on the micro scale, if you are an indy designer, if a big company comes along and steals your work and sells it, you _should_ have the legal tools to stop them.
Unless you want your work to be stolen from you without recourse, we need IP. How its regulated is rightly questioned. What is not legitimate is questioning if it should exist. Taking it away would only benefit big/rich companies/people.
- scotty79 6y agoSo Astra Zeneca is indy now? Is every law all or nothing? There are plenty of possible restrictions on IP that could bring much societal benefit. But you can't implement any if them if you idealistically believe IP is all good despite all the evidence we have to the contrary.
- KaiserPro 6y agoI'm not sure if you're deliberately misreading what I've written. The _concept_ of IP is sound, see the two examples I have given. As I've clearly stated, proper regulation is key. An example of bad law is the mickey mouse protection law. The fact that anything _I_ produce is my property is brilliant (my so called moral rights). If you want to sign them away, that's entirely up to you, the point is, its my choice.