3 ms·
> isn’t the premise that if privacy was rampant and patents didn’t exist then more people and companies would be able to innovate on the technology No, because
by zepto 5y ago
> isn’t the premise that if privacy was rampant and patents didn’t exist then more people and companies would be able to innovate on the technology
No, because innovating on technology costs money and if you can’t get a return on that, the incentive to invest is eliminated.
The eInk situation is indeed dysfunctional, but the fact that one patent holder is bad at business doesn’t mean much more than that.
- reificator 5y ago> The eInk situation is indeed dysfunctional, but the fact that one patent holder is bad at business doesn’t mean much more than that. Whether they're bad at business or not, it's certainly not a situation that makes me feel like the patent system is in my best interest.
- zepto 5y agoSure, but the point is that no system is going to be perfect, so just this one example doesn’t tell us much.
- foxpurple 5y agoIt’s not just eink. So many technologies are blocked by patents. It’s said that 3D printing only just exploded because the patents required had expired.