4 ms·

Not sure I agree with the abolition of patents. If it takes you a decade or more to invent something and then someone else can immediately copy and sell it, wha

Not sure I agree with the abolition of patents. If it takes you a decade or more to invent something and then someone else can immediately copy and sell it, what incentive do you have to do all that work? I do agree that patents/copyright need reform and a reduced patent period could be beneficial, but I think complete abolition would backfire.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago
You're forgetting about the Overton window. If what you really want is e.g. abolition of software patents, what you want to do is to start off demanding abolition of all patents and then compromise at abolition of software patents. That's what the other side does.
squarefoot 5y ago
Patents, just like capitalism, aren't bad by themselves, but if left in the hands of powerful people/entities who can abuse and extend them at will for profits they become dangerous and cancerous, just like capitalism. The solution is probably in some form of strict control that prevents their abuse; very hard to realize if those abusing patents are the same people who dictate rules, or very close to them.
betwixthewires 5y ago
Look at how much open source has revolutionized the software industry. It teaches us a few lessons. First, that people invent for the joy of it regardless. And second, that innovation happens faster when unencumbered. Another good example is penicillin. Imagine where we would be with bacterial infections today without it entering the public domain from day 1. I understand the desire to own your work, and immediately arriving at the conclusion that patents are morally or ethically right, but fundamentally when you release some piece of information into the world, it is for all practical purposes no longer yours. Patents are an artificial protection for something that simply isn't true in practice, and it doesn't appear that it increases innovation at all, if your focus is the practical side of things.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > First, that people invent for the joy of it regardless. Some things sure, but I don't see how this would work for drugs that cost tens of millions of dollars to develop and run through trials.
  - alexvoda 5y ago
    First of all, plenty of drug research and patents are actually done in order to develop variants that avoid other patents. Patents in the drug industry are mostly a parasite producing more patents. Secondly, plenty of research is publicly funded. The major philosophical error people make when asking why would people create anything in the absence of IP laws is believing that just because they created/invented something, they are owed something in return. Plenty of times, IP gets created, but there is no one to sell licensees to because no one wants it. The major historical error is believing forgetting that people created and invented stuff just fine before IP laws existed.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Well, here's a thought. Maybe they cost so much because everyone has to start from scratch because they're not allowed to leverage existing tech and research because of patents.
Kinrany 5y ago
Most of the time major inventions are produced by communities, not individuals.
cookiengineer 5y ago
Maybe you should start to count how many actual inventors own their patents...and compare that to the number of trivial patents, design patents, and patents that have never been invented and just have been reserved for future use by mega corporations. Then take a look at companies like Oracle that did not invent anything for the last 20 years, but are still sueing the whole software industry for things that are common practices even taught in University classes. An API shall be patentable? Seriously? While I am still pro patents I also have to say that patent offices are the wrong judges (speaking of them as part of the judicative branch) on what is patentable and what is not. Why did Microsoft got most of their financial income from Google's Android over the last decades? (before Azure took off) ...it was the licensing income stream for the mp3 codec that wasn't actually invented by them; it was invented by the Fraunhofer Institute in the 80s. It's ridiculous that the patent system is so messed up that they always favor not the actual inventors.
kube-system 5y ago
They are also intended to encourage sharing of information. Without patent protection, someone who spends 10 years to make a profitable product may just keep all of the information about it a trade secret.
sfe22 5y ago
Even if you want patents to exist (which i don't believe in), but lets say for whatever reason they are necessary. there is no reason the government should run this program. They are a monopoly and should not get a say in how someones intellectual “property” is protected. Plenty of work left in protecting real property and rights. Private companies and individuals can worry about this if it is worth their time.

AnthonyMouse 5y ago

You're forgetting about the Overton window. If what you really want is e.g. abolition of software patents, what you want to do is to start off demanding abolition of all patents and then compromise at abolition of software patents. That's what the other side does.

squarefoot 5y ago

Patents, just like capitalism, aren't bad by themselves, but if left in the hands of powerful people/entities who can abuse and extend them at will for profits they become dangerous and cancerous, just like capitalism. The solution is probably in some form of strict control that prevents their abuse; very hard to realize if those abusing patents are the same people who dictate rules, or very close to them.

betwixthewires 5y ago

Look at how much open source has revolutionized the software industry. It teaches us a few lessons. First, that people invent for the joy of it regardless. And second, that innovation happens faster when unencumbered. Another good example is penicillin. Imagine where we would be with bacterial infections today without it entering the public domain from day 1. I understand the desire to own your work, and immediately arriving at the conclusion that patents are morally or ethically right, but fundamentally when you release some piece of information into the world, it is for all practical purposes no longer yours. Patents are an artificial protection for something that simply isn't true in practice, and it doesn't appear that it increases innovation at all, if your focus is the practical side of things.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
> First, that people invent for the joy of it regardless. Some things sure, but I don't see how this would work for drugs that cost tens of millions of dollars to develop and run through trials.
- alexvoda 5y ago
  First of all, plenty of drug research and patents are actually done in order to develop variants that avoid other patents. Patents in the drug industry are mostly a parasite producing more patents. Secondly, plenty of research is publicly funded. The major philosophical error people make when asking why would people create anything in the absence of IP laws is believing that just because they created/invented something, they are owed something in return. Plenty of times, IP gets created, but there is no one to sell licensees to because no one wants it. The major historical error is believing forgetting that people created and invented stuff just fine before IP laws existed.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Well, here's a thought. Maybe they cost so much because everyone has to start from scratch because they're not allowed to leverage existing tech and research because of patents.

Kinrany 5y ago

Most of the time major inventions are produced by communities, not individuals.

cookiengineer 5y ago

Maybe you should start to count how many actual inventors own their patents...and compare that to the number of trivial patents, design patents, and patents that have never been invented and just have been reserved for future use by mega corporations. Then take a look at companies like Oracle that did not invent anything for the last 20 years, but are still sueing the whole software industry for things that are common practices even taught in University classes. An API shall be patentable? Seriously? While I am still pro patents I also have to say that patent offices are the wrong judges (speaking of them as part of the judicative branch) on what is patentable and what is not. Why did Microsoft got most of their financial income from Google's Android over the last decades? (before Azure took off) ...it was the licensing income stream for the mp3 codec that wasn't actually invented by them; it was invented by the Fraunhofer Institute in the 80s. It's ridiculous that the patent system is so messed up that they always favor not the actual inventors.

kube-system 5y ago

They are also intended to encourage sharing of information. Without patent protection, someone who spends 10 years to make a profitable product may just keep all of the information about it a trade secret.

sfe22 5y ago

Even if you want patents to exist (which i don't believe in), but lets say for whatever reason they are necessary. there is no reason the government should run this program. They are a monopoly and should not get a say in how someones intellectual “property” is protected. Plenty of work left in protecting real property and rights. Private companies and individuals can worry about this if it is worth their time.