4 ms·

Shiva argues that the methods pushed by industry are what weaken food security. Patent protected seeds that cannot legally be collected put big industry between

Shiva argues that the methods pushed by industry are what weaken food security. Patent protected seeds that cannot legally be collected put big industry between farmers and their food production. She argues for a more resilient food system through seed collection and sharing, biodynamic farming practices that promote healthy disease resistant soil, and an end to fossil fuel inputs in farming. She is advocating for a stronger food system less susceptible to disease and economic disruption. Regarding intellectual property restrictions: I’m sorry but you’ve bought in to the widely held belief that patents promote innovation. Of course the main function of the patent is to strictly regulate innovation. Large corporations buy up every new idea they can, and use their patent portfolios to threaten anyone who might dare tread on their turf. Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry. With patents, much fewer players buy up rights to yesterday’s ideas and prevent a sea of competition. Think of the 3D printer. $50,000 when release under patent. $25,000 12 years later when still under patent. $2,000 from many companies three years after the patents expired. $250 and available worldwide from hundreds of companies ten years after the patents expired. There was a LOT of innovation that occurred in the 3D printing space in that decade after the patents expired! I’m sorry I’m in a rush but here is some further reading: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284 https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/03/08/neoliberal-plague-aids-and-global-capitalism/ https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2013/03/08/neoliberal-pl... https://inmotionmagazine.com/global/vshiva4_int.html https://inmotionmagazine.com/global/vshiva4_int.html http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht...

WalterBright 5y ago
What do patents (which I oppose, btw) have to do with environmental degradation? and Bill Gates being rich?
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I believe patents reduce the likelihood of companies building things with compatible, interchangeable parts which makes them harder to repair and thus they are disposed of sooner. I also think it leads to less durable goods such that they come to need repair sooner. For my 3D printer for example compatible parts are available from a number of suppliers and it is easy to repair. Now look at power tools. Proprietary batteries and chargers that change year over year so customers always need to throw out old tools and buy new ones. I assume the battery connectors are patent protected though adapters from China are starting to hit the market anyway. Still grey markets are a bandaid over the real problems.
908B64B197 5y ago
Shiva has interesting arguments. > Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry. And a complete stagnation in some areas due to the cost barrier of certain research since, as soon as the product will be out someone will start to improve it incrementally without having to recoup the R&D costs.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  A few things: The world would be vastly better without patents in my opinion. Faster innovation, cheaper goods, less environmental waste. Medical technology would be better and cheaper. High technology like MRI machines would become cheaper, health care would become cheaper, etc. Really massive benefits. It could be that there are certain fields where patents actually help to some degree. In other words an artificial monopoly is the only way to secure enough funds to cross some threshold for viability. Well, fine. We shouldn’t throw out all of the benefits of open innovation just because a few areas will need help. We can recognize what those areas are and provide government funding for investment, like in health care. Then we still get all the benefits of open innovation and we can distort the market with cash injections instead of planet wide distortions on copying.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > Medical technology would be better and cheaper That's the first sector where research will grind to a halt. It's extremely costly to bring something to the finish line due to regulations. Think drug research where testing and clinical trials take years. But once the molecule has been synthesized, it's trivial to do so at scale. So what smarter players will do is simply wait for someone to spend years on R&D then copy at the finish line and flood the market. > We can recognize what those areas are and provide government funding for investment, like in health care So bureaucrats will have even more say in who/what project gets funding. See how wonderful that has been for the EU tech sector.
sireat 5y ago
e-ink is another area where progress is glacial because of the way a certain patents holder has decided to monetize.
- robinsoh 5y ago
  This has been covered repeatedly on HN. There's no evidence of this. Electrophoresis is slow because of the laws of physics! That's why a 2007 kindle panel's update speed is the same as a 2021 kindle but the contrast ratio and cost is vastly superior since those are things that aren't violating physics! Companies like ClearInk are trying different methods to get faster speed but to achieve that they are forced to sacrifice bistability. Not sure why this factually incorrect trope about patents keeps getting repeated. You can look at my comment history to see that I've been trying to address this issue repeatedly.
  - sireat 5y ago
    We are talking about two issues - progress and existing availability: 1. Improvement on panels - you are right, physics is holding us back here. It is debatable whether cross-licensing so prevalent elsewhere in the industry would help. Even then I'd say Eink is holding industry back because they've closed avenues for other companies to iterate on Eink's core patents. (Again maybe good for Eink, but not good for everyone else) 2. Variety, use, licensing of existing technology - here Eink corporation is holding everyone else back. They decide on what to manufacture and how to sell it. How can this be good for the consumer / small time startup? There is plenty of anecdata on how hard it is to make a new product with Eink. They are very protective of their technology. LG can't just decide to make 32inch eink panels and license the tech from Eink. Eink practically holds a monopoly in their niche. They've bought most of their competitors in eink industry. SiPix was one of them. They are heavily pushing for vertical integration. My argument is that with more open patent situation in e-ink world, we would see more/different manufacturers, we would see more interesting devices with different sizes/ratios at a lower cost. PS I own 10+ e-ink readers in sizes from 5 inches to 13.3 inches and everything in between that Eink has allowed makers to use. I am convinced that with more competition we would see better variety in large size e-ink device market. I have an open mind, and would love to see an example of some company being a sole patent holder/monopoly for 20+ years in some industry being good for everyone else.

WalterBright 5y ago

What do patents (which I oppose, btw) have to do with environmental degradation? and Bill Gates being rich?

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I believe patents reduce the likelihood of companies building things with compatible, interchangeable parts which makes them harder to repair and thus they are disposed of sooner. I also think it leads to less durable goods such that they come to need repair sooner. For my 3D printer for example compatible parts are available from a number of suppliers and it is easy to repair. Now look at power tools. Proprietary batteries and chargers that change year over year so customers always need to throw out old tools and buy new ones. I assume the battery connectors are patent protected though adapters from China are starting to hit the market anyway. Still grey markets are a bandaid over the real problems.

908B64B197 5y ago

Shiva has interesting arguments. > Economically, a world without patents would have more smaller incremental investments as innovation occurs in parallel across many companies in industry. And a complete stagnation in some areas due to the cost barrier of certain research since, as soon as the product will be out someone will start to improve it incrementally without having to recoup the R&D costs.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
A few things: The world would be vastly better without patents in my opinion. Faster innovation, cheaper goods, less environmental waste. Medical technology would be better and cheaper. High technology like MRI machines would become cheaper, health care would become cheaper, etc. Really massive benefits. It could be that there are certain fields where patents actually help to some degree. In other words an artificial monopoly is the only way to secure enough funds to cross some threshold for viability. Well, fine. We shouldn’t throw out all of the benefits of open innovation just because a few areas will need help. We can recognize what those areas are and provide government funding for investment, like in health care. Then we still get all the benefits of open innovation and we can distort the market with cash injections instead of planet wide distortions on copying.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > Medical technology would be better and cheaper That's the first sector where research will grind to a halt. It's extremely costly to bring something to the finish line due to regulations. Think drug research where testing and clinical trials take years. But once the molecule has been synthesized, it's trivial to do so at scale. So what smarter players will do is simply wait for someone to spend years on R&D then copy at the finish line and flood the market. > We can recognize what those areas are and provide government funding for investment, like in health care So bureaucrats will have even more say in who/what project gets funding. See how wonderful that has been for the EU tech sector.

sireat 5y ago

e-ink is another area where progress is glacial because of the way a certain patents holder has decided to monetize.

robinsoh 5y ago
This has been covered repeatedly on HN. There's no evidence of this. Electrophoresis is slow because of the laws of physics! That's why a 2007 kindle panel's update speed is the same as a 2021 kindle but the contrast ratio and cost is vastly superior since those are things that aren't violating physics! Companies like ClearInk are trying different methods to get faster speed but to achieve that they are forced to sacrifice bistability. Not sure why this factually incorrect trope about patents keeps getting repeated. You can look at my comment history to see that I've been trying to address this issue repeatedly.
- sireat 5y ago
  We are talking about two issues - progress and existing availability: 1. Improvement on panels - you are right, physics is holding us back here. It is debatable whether cross-licensing so prevalent elsewhere in the industry would help. Even then I'd say Eink is holding industry back because they've closed avenues for other companies to iterate on Eink's core patents. (Again maybe good for Eink, but not good for everyone else) 2. Variety, use, licensing of existing technology - here Eink corporation is holding everyone else back. They decide on what to manufacture and how to sell it. How can this be good for the consumer / small time startup? There is plenty of anecdata on how hard it is to make a new product with Eink. They are very protective of their technology. LG can't just decide to make 32inch eink panels and license the tech from Eink. Eink practically holds a monopoly in their niche. They've bought most of their competitors in eink industry. SiPix was one of them. They are heavily pushing for vertical integration. My argument is that with more open patent situation in e-ink world, we would see more/different manufacturers, we would see more interesting devices with different sizes/ratios at a lower cost. PS I own 10+ e-ink readers in sizes from 5 inches to 13.3 inches and everything in between that Eink has allowed makers to use. I am convinced that with more competition we would see better variety in large size e-ink device market. I have an open mind, and would love to see an example of some company being a sole patent holder/monopoly for 20+ years in some industry being good for everyone else.