5 ms·

I cannot think of a better way to actually impede humanity's progress than to put up artificial barriers to techniques developed to help spur innovation and gro

I cannot think of a better way to actually impede humanity's progress than to put up artificial barriers to techniques developed to help spur innovation and growth. The patent system is mind numbingly stupid as it absolutely STIFLES innovation.

NonNefarious 4y ago
It's worse than that. By allowing patents that are supposed to be illegal (like those on math and things that are obvious), the USPTO abets companies in stealing people's work.
gjsman-1000 4y ago
On the other hand, who would research anything or spend anything on R&D if it was not protected? It's a two-way street. There are good patents, bad patents, and everything in between.
- betaby 4y ago
  Most of R&D in the medical/pharmacological field is done by government grants as an example.
  - tyrfing 4y ago
    Do you have a source for 'most'? Pharma R&D spending is very high compared to any other industry. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126
    - betaby 4y ago
      https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dolla... The raw dollar value R&D in the private sector is higher, but that's accounting gymnastics for tax purposes, not actual R&D.
- netr0ute 4y ago
  Then the competitors that don't care about lack of patents will take over the market, creating the impetus for innovation again.
  - Majestic121 4y ago
    Not really, there will be small innovation on obvious matters but any R&D that actual takes capital to validate or does not have immediate result will simply be dropped. Or kept purely secret
  - Layke1123 4y ago
    I thought competition is what keeps markets working efficiently. Without competition, what's the motivation to actually share innovation when it is not needed to maximize profits, as innovation is much more costly than maintaining the status quo?
- ploxiln 4y ago
  > who would research anything or spend anything on R&D if it was not protected? Most people that do real R&D do it because they want to, not because they're rewarded with patents. They want to make a better camera, a better camera format, and sell it. And nobody learns how to make something by reading the patents, in the past 50+ years they're practically unreadable legalese. Once upon a time they had diagrams for mechanical devices or chemical processes, but now they're just ideas that many people faced with similar challenges and available technologies would have considered, except the first to bother to patent a general idea like "compress raw sensor data before debayering" now gets to be a massive pain in the ass to people actually doing R&D to make things.
  - babypuncher 4y ago
    I think this is true on an individual level, but a lot of high tech innovation is only possible with hundreds of engineers working together full time for years. Nobody is inventing EUV lithography in their garage, someone had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars assembling the necessary talent and providing the resources needed to get it done. That someone expects a return on their investment, otherwise they will find something else to do with their capital. What we really need is much more strict requirements for what qualifies as a truly unique innovation worthy of patent protection. None of this BS about virtual shopping carts on eCommerce sites, or playable minigames on video game loading screens.
    - Layke1123 4y ago
      https://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-22-year-old-makes-microchips-in-parents-garage-2022-3#:~:text=Sam%20Zeloof%2C%2022%2C%20made%20a,accessible%2C%20according%20to%20Ars%20Technica https://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-22-year-old-makes-micr....
      - babypuncher 4y ago
        > Sam Zeloof, a 22-year-old American, produced a chip with 1,200 transistors This is an impressive feat to be sure, but to compare it to modern EUV lithography is like comparing a crossbow to an ICBM
- Layke1123 4y ago
  Sheer...human...curiosity. When everyone can afford a comfortable lifestyle, what else do you think humanity will do? Drink themselves to death? If that were true, we would already be long gone.
- strbean 4y ago
  It seems to me there was a whole hell of a lot of invention and progress prior to the advent of patents. Perhaps the same things that spurred that innovation?
- charlieyu1 4y ago
  It is more like what should be allowed to be patented and what should not, how long should patents last, etc. Besides, patents are not the only way to protect R&D.
- nmfisher 4y ago
  There has been mindboggling investment in machine learning over the last few decades, yet almost nothing is protected by patent (even where patents exist, they're purely defensive). Tesla's patents were voluntarily neutered, so anyone can use them - hasn't stopped Tesla from investing in R&D. Microsoft has done something similar. It's simply not true to say that innovation or R&D would grind to a halt if patents ceased to exist. If anything, we might even see the complete opposite, because it massively lowers the barriers to entry. Bad patents and their negative impact on the world far, far outweigh the positive impact from the good ones (if there is such a thing). Scrap the whole damn system.

NonNefarious 4y ago

It's worse than that. By allowing patents that are supposed to be illegal (like those on math and things that are obvious), the USPTO abets companies in stealing people's work.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

On the other hand, who would research anything or spend anything on R&D if it was not protected? It's a two-way street. There are good patents, bad patents, and everything in between.

betaby 4y ago
Most of R&D in the medical/pharmacological field is done by government grants as an example.
- tyrfing 4y ago
  Do you have a source for 'most'? Pharma R&D spending is very high compared to any other industry. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57126
  - betaby 4y ago
    https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dollars-funded-every-new-pharmaceutical-in-the-last-decade https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/us-tax-dolla... The raw dollar value R&D in the private sector is higher, but that's accounting gymnastics for tax purposes, not actual R&D.
netr0ute 4y ago
Then the competitors that don't care about lack of patents will take over the market, creating the impetus for innovation again.
- Majestic121 4y ago
  Not really, there will be small innovation on obvious matters but any R&D that actual takes capital to validate or does not have immediate result will simply be dropped. Or kept purely secret
- Layke1123 4y ago
  I thought competition is what keeps markets working efficiently. Without competition, what's the motivation to actually share innovation when it is not needed to maximize profits, as innovation is much more costly than maintaining the status quo?
ploxiln 4y ago
> who would research anything or spend anything on R&D if it was not protected? Most people that do real R&D do it because they want to, not because they're rewarded with patents. They want to make a better camera, a better camera format, and sell it. And nobody learns how to make something by reading the patents, in the past 50+ years they're practically unreadable legalese. Once upon a time they had diagrams for mechanical devices or chemical processes, but now they're just ideas that many people faced with similar challenges and available technologies would have considered, except the first to bother to patent a general idea like "compress raw sensor data before debayering" now gets to be a massive pain in the ass to people actually doing R&D to make things.
- babypuncher 4y ago
  I think this is true on an individual level, but a lot of high tech innovation is only possible with hundreds of engineers working together full time for years. Nobody is inventing EUV lithography in their garage, someone had to spend hundreds of millions of dollars assembling the necessary talent and providing the resources needed to get it done. That someone expects a return on their investment, otherwise they will find something else to do with their capital. What we really need is much more strict requirements for what qualifies as a truly unique innovation worthy of patent protection. None of this BS about virtual shopping carts on eCommerce sites, or playable minigames on video game loading screens.
  - Layke1123 4y ago
    https://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-22-year-old-makes-microchips-in-parents-garage-2022-3#:~:text=Sam%20Zeloof%2C%2022%2C%20made%20a,accessible%2C%20according%20to%20Ars%20Technica https://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-22-year-old-makes-micr....
    - babypuncher 4y ago
      > Sam Zeloof, a 22-year-old American, produced a chip with 1,200 transistors This is an impressive feat to be sure, but to compare it to modern EUV lithography is like comparing a crossbow to an ICBM
Layke1123 4y ago
Sheer...human...curiosity. When everyone can afford a comfortable lifestyle, what else do you think humanity will do? Drink themselves to death? If that were true, we would already be long gone.
strbean 4y ago
It seems to me there was a whole hell of a lot of invention and progress prior to the advent of patents. Perhaps the same things that spurred that innovation?
charlieyu1 4y ago
It is more like what should be allowed to be patented and what should not, how long should patents last, etc. Besides, patents are not the only way to protect R&D.
nmfisher 4y ago
There has been mindboggling investment in machine learning over the last few decades, yet almost nothing is protected by patent (even where patents exist, they're purely defensive). Tesla's patents were voluntarily neutered, so anyone can use them - hasn't stopped Tesla from investing in R&D. Microsoft has done something similar. It's simply not true to say that innovation or R&D would grind to a halt if patents ceased to exist. If anything, we might even see the complete opposite, because it massively lowers the barriers to entry. Bad patents and their negative impact on the world far, far outweigh the positive impact from the good ones (if there is such a thing). Scrap the whole damn system.