3 ms·

I don't buy it. I know people who have worked for patent firms, and independent artists who have tried in vain to enforce the rights they're supposed to have wh

by advael 5y ago

I don't buy it. I know people who have worked for patent firms, and independent artists who have tried in vain to enforce the rights they're supposed to have when someone sells a T-shirt with their art on it without asking, attributing, or paying for it. Industries from software to biotech to agricultural equipment have been abusing patents for decades, and the lawyers involved all know that the name of the game is to go as broad and nebulous as possible to as to lock down huge swaths of potential applications of some general principle. Pharmaceutical and biotech companies are even perversely incentivized to rush new, exotic, poorly-understood chemicals and genetic variants of plants to market and capture prescribers because they can enforce monopolies about it, or patent the treatment of new conditions with public-domain drugs. Where exactly is IP law functioning well?

sbierwagen 5y ago
>when someone sells a T-shirt with their art on it without asking, attributing, or paying for it The rest of your comment is talking about patents. Was this person's art patented?
- advael 5y ago
  Irrelevant. The comment I was responding to said the following: "...I don't think many people here would be familiar with the day-to-day, mundane aspects of IP law which probably, for the most part, works fairly well." I am responding directly to that claim, and have used as examples situations involving patents and situations involving copyright, with the intention of conveying that there is not a single facet of this whole area of law that seems to function well in practice unless your interests are aligned with monopolistic corporate power. Most examples of it not being that bad are examples of it simply not coming up
bdowling 5y ago
The fact that there are disputes over who has an IP right does not mean that IP law is an outright failure and should be abolished. By that logic, disputes over who committed a crime would mean that criminal law is an outright failure and should be abolished. The fact that there are disputes over who has an IP right means that IP rights are important and valuable and are therefore worth fighting about.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  But these constant court disputes mean that it moves some technologies outside of the realm of regular people. If Apple gets a patent for "Display with Pixel Dimming for Curved Edges" then regular people and smaller companies can't use that even if Apple's patent is nonsense. You can only afford to fight off so many lawsuits and still continue doing your original work.
  - bdowling 5y ago
    Most individuals and small companies should(*) just ignore patents they think are invalid because in almost all cases either (a) the patent is actually invalid and the patent owner won't actually litigate it or (b) the patent is valid but much narrower in scope than they think it is. Every patent I've seen held up here on HN as an example of an overly-broad, clearly invalid patent has had much narrower claims than the presenter admits. (*) I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer. This is a general observation and not legal advice. Your actual case will be different.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

by advael 5y ago

sbierwagen 5y ago

>when someone sells a T-shirt with their art on it without asking, attributing, or paying for it The rest of your comment is talking about patents. Was this person's art patented?

advael 5y ago
Irrelevant. The comment I was responding to said the following: "...I don't think many people here would be familiar with the day-to-day, mundane aspects of IP law which probably, for the most part, works fairly well." I am responding directly to that claim, and have used as examples situations involving patents and situations involving copyright, with the intention of conveying that there is not a single facet of this whole area of law that seems to function well in practice unless your interests are aligned with monopolistic corporate power. Most examples of it not being that bad are examples of it simply not coming up

bdowling 5y ago

The fact that there are disputes over who has an IP right does not mean that IP law is an outright failure and should be abolished. By that logic, disputes over who committed a crime would mean that criminal law is an outright failure and should be abolished. The fact that there are disputes over who has an IP right means that IP rights are important and valuable and are therefore worth fighting about.

Aerroon 5y ago
But these constant court disputes mean that it moves some technologies outside of the realm of regular people. If Apple gets a patent for "Display with Pixel Dimming for Curved Edges" then regular people and smaller companies can't use that even if Apple's patent is nonsense. You can only afford to fight off so many lawsuits and still continue doing your original work.
- bdowling 5y ago
  Most individuals and small companies should(*) just ignore patents they think are invalid because in almost all cases either (a) the patent is actually invalid and the patent owner won't actually litigate it or (b) the patent is valid but much narrower in scope than they think it is. Every patent I've seen held up here on HN as an example of an overly-broad, clearly invalid patent has had much narrower claims than the presenter admits. (*) I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer. This is a general observation and not legal advice. Your actual case will be different.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]