4 ms·

Re: "It should be a free for all." Currently, if you invent an innovative new mechanical device like a better can opener, and it sells well on Amazon, within a

Re: "It should be a free for all." Currently, if you invent an innovative new mechanical device like a better can opener, and it sells well on Amazon, within a few weeks, low cost Chinese copy cats will flood the market, and you will not be able to make a profit. So, a free-for-all strategy seems to reward low cost copiers over innovators. It just depends on what we want to reward.

lordnacho 5y ago
If your product can simply be copied and then delivered in a few weeks, the innovation is not really all that innovative, you've merely discovered a variant of the item that people want that is already within the space of currently manufacturable items. The capability to make the thing already existed. A lot of "low-cost copying" is actually just tuning an existing apparatus to what the market wants. Suppose you discover that people want to buy triangle-shaped plates. Either there's something special about your particular take on it that naturally protects your business, or existing makers of round plates can retool and make triangles and get value out to the customers sooner and in more volume than you. Why not let them have that reward? Also keep in mind that a lot of these low cost manufacturers are actually testing the market themselves with new variants, so it's not like they're not doing anything innovative.
- jmole 5y ago
  You can copy a song in milliseconds and distribute it instantly - that doesn't mean it's not innovative. There is no alternative system for remuneration, we use intellectual property rights to ensure that people are rewarded for the results of their creative work. Without that right of ownership, the balance of power between capital and labor becomes even more tilted toward capital.
  - errantmind 5y ago
    I'd argue the opposite is true, which is why we need some evidence one way or another that the patent system works at all, and we don't have that. So why do we have a restrictive system that doesn't have any real data to support its existence?

lordnacho 5y ago

If your product can simply be copied and then delivered in a few weeks, the innovation is not really all that innovative, you've merely discovered a variant of the item that people want that is already within the space of currently manufacturable items. The capability to make the thing already existed. A lot of "low-cost copying" is actually just tuning an existing apparatus to what the market wants. Suppose you discover that people want to buy triangle-shaped plates. Either there's something special about your particular take on it that naturally protects your business, or existing makers of round plates can retool and make triangles and get value out to the customers sooner and in more volume than you. Why not let them have that reward? Also keep in mind that a lot of these low cost manufacturers are actually testing the market themselves with new variants, so it's not like they're not doing anything innovative.

jmole 5y ago
You can copy a song in milliseconds and distribute it instantly - that doesn't mean it's not innovative. There is no alternative system for remuneration, we use intellectual property rights to ensure that people are rewarded for the results of their creative work. Without that right of ownership, the balance of power between capital and labor becomes even more tilted toward capital.
- errantmind 5y ago
  I'd argue the opposite is true, which is why we need some evidence one way or another that the patent system works at all, and we don't have that. So why do we have a restrictive system that doesn't have any real data to support its existence?