4 ms·

Patents are just inherently bad. There is no way to morally/ethically justify them nor to "fix" the inherently broken system. This is just one of those unquesti

Patents are just inherently bad. There is no way to morally/ethically justify them nor to "fix" the inherently broken system. This is just one of those unquestioned relics from the past that clutches at shackling the youth for the sake of the old entrenched powers, and thus holds back humanity. https://reasonandliberty.com/articles/patents https://reasonandliberty.com/articles/patents

snarf21 4y ago
Serious Question: Do you think that all software should have to be completely and constantly open-sourced? Do you think that all blueprints must be made public? Do you think that all recipes for food must be made public? Creation is hard and should have some potential for rewards. I think we need software patents (especially) to be shorter lived and non-transferable. They can only be licensed and the licensing schedule should have to be public and available for all people at the same price. The employer can get a free license as part of the patent process for company use. This gets rid of trolls and patent farms.
- nu11ptr 4y ago
  > Serious Question: Do you think that all software should have to be completely and constantly open-sourced? Do you think that all blueprints must be made public? Do you think that all recipes for food must be made public? No, we have copyright and trade secrets to protect those things. There are many forms of IP protection, but patents are the most questionable by far IMO, and are more likely (in most fields) to be a net loss rather than a net gain for humanity. > Creation is hard and should have some potential for rewards. I think we need software patents (especially) to be shorter lived and non-transferable. They can only be licensed and the licensing schedule should have to be public and available for all people at the same price. The employer can get a free license as part of the patent process for company use. This gets rid of trolls and patent farms. Copyright protection is sufficient for software IMO. Very few pieces of software are novel enough to be worthy of a patent, and in the few cases that are, the greater number that aren't outweigh the benefit to the few. When you have to try this hard to salvage the system, it is usually best to not try and salvage it.
- MrStonedOne 4y ago
  Copyright protects software better than patents do.
- closeparen 4y ago
  The potential for reward in creating useful software is licensing the software. It shouldn't be in extracting rents from others whose own software is too similar.
- asdff 4y ago
  >Serious Question: Do you think that all software should have to be completely and constantly open-sourced? Do you think that all blueprints must be made public? Do you think that all recipes for food must be made public? Of course! Maybe that's because in the sciences this is a normal thing in order to get published at all. If you present findings with a black box reviewers will want to pry in. And what do you know, the sky doesn't fall with all of this sharing of knowledge. People who put time into their findings are still considered experts and are rewarded. In fact its probably a lot easier to point to your accomplishments when things are actually public and you can talk freely about them, versus layered behind NDAs and whatever else other threats designed to keep you from talking about the work you do to other people who might do something generally useful with that information.

snarf21 4y ago

Serious Question: Do you think that all software should have to be completely and constantly open-sourced? Do you think that all blueprints must be made public? Do you think that all recipes for food must be made public? Creation is hard and should have some potential for rewards. I think we need software patents (especially) to be shorter lived and non-transferable. They can only be licensed and the licensing schedule should have to be public and available for all people at the same price. The employer can get a free license as part of the patent process for company use. This gets rid of trolls and patent farms.

nu11ptr 4y ago
> Serious Question: Do you think that all software should have to be completely and constantly open-sourced? Do you think that all blueprints must be made public? Do you think that all recipes for food must be made public? No, we have copyright and trade secrets to protect those things. There are many forms of IP protection, but patents are the most questionable by far IMO, and are more likely (in most fields) to be a net loss rather than a net gain for humanity. > Creation is hard and should have some potential for rewards. I think we need software patents (especially) to be shorter lived and non-transferable. They can only be licensed and the licensing schedule should have to be public and available for all people at the same price. The employer can get a free license as part of the patent process for company use. This gets rid of trolls and patent farms. Copyright protection is sufficient for software IMO. Very few pieces of software are novel enough to be worthy of a patent, and in the few cases that are, the greater number that aren't outweigh the benefit to the few. When you have to try this hard to salvage the system, it is usually best to not try and salvage it.
MrStonedOne 4y ago
Copyright protects software better than patents do.
closeparen 4y ago
The potential for reward in creating useful software is licensing the software. It shouldn't be in extracting rents from others whose own software is too similar.
asdff 4y ago
>Serious Question: Do you think that all software should have to be completely and constantly open-sourced? Do you think that all blueprints must be made public? Do you think that all recipes for food must be made public? Of course! Maybe that's because in the sciences this is a normal thing in order to get published at all. If you present findings with a black box reviewers will want to pry in. And what do you know, the sky doesn't fall with all of this sharing of knowledge. People who put time into their findings are still considered experts and are rewarded. In fact its probably a lot easier to point to your accomplishments when things are actually public and you can talk freely about them, versus layered behind NDAs and whatever else other threats designed to keep you from talking about the work you do to other people who might do something generally useful with that information.