5 ms·
I don't really understand your objection. If, instead of trying to impose an artificial scarcity on copyable works (which includes inventions), we had a pool o
by shasta 15y ago
I don't really understand your objection. If, instead of trying to impose an artificial scarcity on copyable works (which includes inventions), we had a pool of "awards" that were distributed to creators proportionally to the value of the works, then of course that would provide incentive to disclose copyable works. So what if Knuth would get paid for work he would have made available anyway? There are plenty of people in our economy getting paid to do what they love and would do for free/much less.
The main problem with the idea is that it eliminates negotiations between self interested parties as the means for value estimation. "Voting" on the most valuable works is quite simply a terrible idea. With copyrightable works, we could probably have some technological way (think DRM) of tracking popularity / frequency of use. But for patents, I'm not sure how it would work. I suppose that as long as you make it where the total tax levied on an individual to fund this system doesn't depend on how many or which works they used (though it could depend broadly on what they produce, what industry they are in, etc), they won't have an incentive to hide what they used. It's not at all clear to me that the difficulties inherent in such an approach are greater than those in current approach (which can be charitably describe as "a mess").
- tptacek 15y agoThe notion behind patents is that if we didn't have them, society would be poorer off because people would invent things and then keep them secret, perhaps far longer than the term of a patent, like the formula for Coca Cola.
- shasta 15y agoThat would also be the notion behind a system of awards for copyable works, so I'm not sure what your point is.
- tptacek 15y agoNo, the award system that's being discussed leaves applicants with no certainty that they'll actually be compensated for disclosing. That's not the case with the patent system; subject to modifications, competent patent applicants are virtually certain to get a patent 7 years after applying.
- shasta 15y agoThe existing patent system doesn't guarantee you'll be compensated. In fact, most patents are worthless. The award system could easily incorporate a patent scheme, based either or first to file or first to invent. The important difference between this system and our current one is that licenses are not negotiated. Compensation is decided after the fact based on actual use.
- wnight 15y agoYes, in the current system if you inject enough money you're virtually certain to receive a patent. Otherwise you wouldn't play again... But, there's no guarantee of reward. Far from it, you've only got a letter of marque, not the ship or crew to profit from it with. In a reward system it'd be totally different. No applications, no licenses, just instant wide disclosure. If you don't tell people they can't use it and you won't get rewarded. And you could just document and teach someone else's invention and get rewards that way, in proportion to the value of the accessibility you added.