4 ms·

This doesn't quite work; some of the most creative, innovative ideas in history bubbled up from the collective unconscious in several minds at the same time. Ju

by saulrh 15y ago

This doesn't quite work; some of the most creative, innovative ideas in history bubbled up from the collective unconscious in several minds at the same time. Just look at the number of nobel prizes that get split between people that discovered exactly the same thing at exactly the same time but completely independently.

wtallis 15y ago
You're misunderstanding the purpose of patents. They're not a reward to be granted for every useful invention. Patents exist only to be an incentive for innovation. In almost every case where several inventors are competing to get the invention ready to patent, there is enough natural incentive that the patent is not necessary. In those cases, granting a patent can just as easily slow down the pace of technological progress, by forcing every inventor that didn't get the patent to either stop working in that area or negotiate a patent license before they can continue working to improve the invention.
- saulrh 15y ago
  They give an incentive for innovation by granting the original inventor time to bring his invention to market before an established entity uses its existing resources to block him out. This model isn't very useful to software, but it works perfectly fine with cars and tractors and other things that take five years from concept to product. One trivial improvement might be to split patents the same way that major research recognitions are split. If two people come up with something simultaneously and independently, why not give it to both of them?
  - quadhome 15y ago
    You're both missing the very important compromise of patents. The temporary monopoly patents give were and are understood to be harmful. But, they're less harmful than a world of trade secrets. Which is what we had, before patents. See: guilds. So, we the public offer intellectual property. And, in return, the details of that property become public from the very beginning. And, after a few years, everyone has freedom and the instructions on how to make or do whatever.
    - teyc 15y ago
      Exactly. If the state of the world is that people can separately come up with the same "trade secrets", then there is a case against it being patentable.
    - rwallace 15y ago
      And that is the fundamental fallacy. Trade secrets are far, far less harmful than patents. If you keep your work a trade secret, your customers still benefit and in the worst case you have at least done no harm. Patent trolls destroy far more value than they steal.
afoer 15y ago
But anything coming from the "collective unconscious" would have been discovered, by definition, anyway, and should not be monopolized by any individual.

by saulrh 15y ago

wtallis 15y ago

You're misunderstanding the purpose of patents. They're not a reward to be granted for every useful invention. Patents exist only to be an incentive for innovation. In almost every case where several inventors are competing to get the invention ready to patent, there is enough natural incentive that the patent is not necessary. In those cases, granting a patent can just as easily slow down the pace of technological progress, by forcing every inventor that didn't get the patent to either stop working in that area or negotiate a patent license before they can continue working to improve the invention.

saulrh 15y ago
They give an incentive for innovation by granting the original inventor time to bring his invention to market before an established entity uses its existing resources to block him out. This model isn't very useful to software, but it works perfectly fine with cars and tractors and other things that take five years from concept to product. One trivial improvement might be to split patents the same way that major research recognitions are split. If two people come up with something simultaneously and independently, why not give it to both of them?
- quadhome 15y ago
  You're both missing the very important compromise of patents. The temporary monopoly patents give were and are understood to be harmful. But, they're less harmful than a world of trade secrets. Which is what we had, before patents. See: guilds. So, we the public offer intellectual property. And, in return, the details of that property become public from the very beginning. And, after a few years, everyone has freedom and the instructions on how to make or do whatever.
  - teyc 15y ago
    Exactly. If the state of the world is that people can separately come up with the same "trade secrets", then there is a case against it being patentable.
  - rwallace 15y ago
    And that is the fundamental fallacy. Trade secrets are far, far less harmful than patents. If you keep your work a trade secret, your customers still benefit and in the worst case you have at least done no harm. Patent trolls destroy far more value than they steal.

afoer 15y ago

But anything coming from the "collective unconscious" would have been discovered, by definition, anyway, and should not be monopolized by any individual.