3 ms·

If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, a

If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources. Note that if you don't defend it in court, our justice system thinks it is less valueable to protect. Which in itself is kind of ridiculous. Also, right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property.

zasdffaa 4y ago
> If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. > right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property. I don't understand. If I don't own it I can't market it, right?
- sgift 4y ago
  > There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. It you only want answers you like go talk to a mirror. The way this adds to the discussion should be pretty obvious, but let me spill it out: If one of the main arguments for IP is wrong it's costs/benefits have to be reevaluated.
  - zasdffaa 4y ago
    At least a mirror won't tell me "you're fucked, give up now". In that sense, I can expect a less enervating response.
    - krageon 4y ago
      That's not what they said. They said "the power distribution is so skewed against actual people the current system must be destroyed as a matter of principle". What about that is hopeless? It offers a clear escape and very little ambiguity. If anything, it should be energising to a casual reader.
      - zasdffaa 4y ago
        He said "If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources" IOW he didn't say what you claim. Plus he gave no way forward to achieve his goals, and am I not in any position right now to Bring Down The Man, much as The Man may need it, so it was just a hopeless valueless post.
        krageon 4y ago
        Within the larger context of this thread, the intent was clear. You yourself were responding to a post that gives this necessary context: Intellectual property is absurd and evil. The poster you reply to tells you why it is absurd and evil. Those two things together lead you naturally to the conclusion that it must be abolished. As such, I would say what they said is absolutely what I claimed. I just explained it in plainer terms and without requiring you to (re)read the rest of the thread. Edit: The fact that you summarised "this system must be destroyed" as "hopeless" says something about your own fundamental hopelessness and despair. Which you kind of ironically attributed to someone else.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
        > Intellectual property is absurd and evil I don't agree, just the excessive enforcement of it may well be. > The fact that you summarised "this system must be destroyed" as "hopeless" says something No. What I said was: > hopeless valueless post. The post was valueless because it gives no direction, no means. And I detest such posts because they offer nothing useful. They are unconstructive. Hence are valueless.
        krageon 4y ago
        With respect, if we can't even constructively discuss what you yourself said I think we will go nowhere and we are wasting each others' time.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      I'm sorry that corporate intellectual property law is not the idyllic paradise you want it to be.
catchclose8919 4y ago
The solution is simple: ONLY private persons should own patents, and it should be illegal even for employers or institutions (academic, research) to own patents of people employed to do research. At most companies and istitutions should be allowed to add a clause of "perpetual-free-usage of any patents of employees resulting from direct work" - but an employee or group-of-employees holdig a patent should still be able to license it to other companies too. If businesses are hurt, that's GOOD, most should not exist as coagulated entities. We're not gonna have proper freedom preserving capitalism ultil we properly decentralize: we all work like swarms of 1-person-companies / solopreneurs contracting between eachother. (No, not the gig-economy, in that distopia we're all still slaves that can't band together to fight the masters.) Legislation will automatically have to be refacored to make this work. With some exceptions, only human individuals should hold most property, not companies and not institutions. Groups/collectives only when the group members directly worked together and know eachother. And Intellectual Property would just "click in" in in such context. IP sounds hellish and disfunctional because our own practically techno-communist society (yeah, even USA is practically "communist" nowadays in a way - newsflash: "the reds" have won! even the f symbolism is there, "the red pill" is the good one now... all's backwards) is messed up. It makes perfect sense in a hyper-decentralized hyper-individualistic REALLY democratic and REALLY capitalist society.

zasdffaa 4y ago

> If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. > right to commercialization has nothing to do with intellectual property. I don't understand. If I don't own it I can't market it, right?

sgift 4y ago
> There's always someone who just has to spread the despair and helplessness. Every bloody time. Tell me, in what way does this add to the discussion? I wish there was a ban on these kind of comments. It you only want answers you like go talk to a mirror. The way this adds to the discussion should be pretty obvious, but let me spill it out: If one of the main arguments for IP is wrong it's costs/benefits have to be reevaluated.
- zasdffaa 4y ago
  At least a mirror won't tell me "you're fucked, give up now". In that sense, I can expect a less enervating response.
  - krageon 4y ago
    That's not what they said. They said "the power distribution is so skewed against actual people the current system must be destroyed as a matter of principle". What about that is hopeless? It offers a clear escape and very little ambiguity. If anything, it should be energising to a casual reader.
    - zasdffaa 4y ago
      He said "If you as a private person own a patent, you are losing it anyways...because you cannot fight some mega corporation in court to defend it. It's too expensive, and the biggest corps just take what they want due to having more financial resources" IOW he didn't say what you claim. Plus he gave no way forward to achieve his goals, and am I not in any position right now to Bring Down The Man, much as The Man may need it, so it was just a hopeless valueless post.
      - krageon 4y ago
        Within the larger context of this thread, the intent was clear. You yourself were responding to a post that gives this necessary context: Intellectual property is absurd and evil. The poster you reply to tells you why it is absurd and evil. Those two things together lead you naturally to the conclusion that it must be abolished. As such, I would say what they said is absolutely what I claimed. I just explained it in plainer terms and without requiring you to (re)read the rest of the thread. Edit: The fact that you summarised "this system must be destroyed" as "hopeless" says something about your own fundamental hopelessness and despair. Which you kind of ironically attributed to someone else.
        zasdffaa 4y ago
        > Intellectual property is absurd and evil I don't agree, just the excessive enforcement of it may well be. > The fact that you summarised "this system must be destroyed" as "hopeless" says something No. What I said was: > hopeless valueless post. The post was valueless because it gives no direction, no means. And I detest such posts because they offer nothing useful. They are unconstructive. Hence are valueless.
        krageon 4y ago
        With respect, if we can't even constructively discuss what you yourself said I think we will go nowhere and we are wasting each others' time.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    I'm sorry that corporate intellectual property law is not the idyllic paradise you want it to be.

catchclose8919 4y ago

The solution is simple: ONLY private persons should own patents, and it should be illegal even for employers or institutions (academic, research) to own patents of people employed to do research. At most companies and istitutions should be allowed to add a clause of "perpetual-free-usage of any patents of employees resulting from direct work" - but an employee or group-of-employees holdig a patent should still be able to license it to other companies too. If businesses are hurt, that's GOOD, most should not exist as coagulated entities. We're not gonna have proper freedom preserving capitalism ultil we properly decentralize: we all work like swarms of 1-person-companies / solopreneurs contracting between eachother. (No, not the gig-economy, in that distopia we're all still slaves that can't band together to fight the masters.) Legislation will automatically have to be refacored to make this work. With some exceptions, only human individuals should hold most property, not companies and not institutions. Groups/collectives only when the group members directly worked together and know eachother. And Intellectual Property would just "click in" in in such context. IP sounds hellish and disfunctional because our own practically techno-communist society (yeah, even USA is practically "communist" nowadays in a way - newsflash: "the reds" have won! even the f symbolism is there, "the red pill" is the good one now... all's backwards) is messed up. It makes perfect sense in a hyper-decentralized hyper-individualistic REALLY democratic and REALLY capitalist society.