4 ms·
It seems you agree with the beneficial premise of patents. But you disagree about the degree of that benefit. Why 5? Why not 2 years? Or 8 years? The same argu
by hackernewds 4y ago
It seems you agree with the beneficial premise of patents. But you disagree about the degree of that benefit.
Why 5? Why not 2 years? Or 8 years? The same argument could be used to support or known down either option.
- rektide 4y ago5 years is a long long time to dictate to the world your terms. You've had a chance to make a huge impact after 5 years. If the current system, especially where no courts defend a RAND premise (reasonable and non-disciminatory), 5 years is a vast amount of human life where progress may be kept in stasis. Humanity deserves to not be trapped for even 5 years, but hopefully the limit compels action even earlier. In general, I think information-theory and software patents are also highly highly highly bullshit & everyone involved with this unethical & immoral practice should probably be shot into the sun.
- lodovic 4y agoThis would enable major players to stall you for five years (mainly with lawsuits) and wait until your patent has expired. Five years is just too short.
- rektide 4y agoMeh I doubt it. Five years is a long time. If it's going to be longer, patents need mandatory needs Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licensing. 20 years is insane, even with FRAND.