4 ms·
I hope they're as weak as possible. The worst possible outcome of a room temp superconductor being discovered is stifling innovation to make money off it
by amrocha 3y ago
I hope they're as weak as possible. The worst possible outcome of a room temp superconductor being discovered is stifling innovation to make money off it
- mhb 3y agoThe worst possible outcome of weak protection is not creating new materials.
- scarmig 3y agoI'm generally anti-patent, but if there were any valid case for patents, this is it. Long, hard labor to discover something entirely new that has massive uses for society. I'd rest my hopes on them not being dicks about it, not on them not getting benefit from it.
- amrocha 3y agoLong, hard labor should be rewarded. And it is. They're receiving a salary, and now fame. That's more than enough.
- yetihehe 3y ago> Long, hard labor should be rewarded. And it is. Why do people ask for raises though? It is somewhat rewarded, but some people don't work long and hard and still have more money. Those working long and hard, having a big useable result want to be rewarded a little more.
- amrocha 3y agoAren't these results mostly luck driven though? Lee and Kim were lucky to go to that university in Korea, lucky that their professor researched superconductor theory, and lucky that the professor's theory was correct. At the same time, other researchers around the world weren't so lucky. But because we don't know what's going to pan out without trying it out, the other researchers are just as integral to the process of discovery. Is it fair to reward Lee and Kim for their luck, and let everyone else get screwed? Wouldn't it be more fair to make sure everyone is appropriately compensated to begin with?
- yetihehe 3y ago> Wouldn't it be more fair to make sure everyone is appropriately compensated to begin with? Yeah, it would be the perfect solution. Problem is how to agree on that, currently we have a market telling everyone what their "appropriate" compensation is.
- MissingAFew 3y agoI honestly can't comprehend how anyone wound think having a monopoly on a material is valid. They will make money without being the cartel of the superconducting sector.
- avereveard 3y agoPatent have reasonable terms. They will have a 20 year head start and then everyone will be competing with them. It's something that will be free in the same lifetime as the researchers, most likely. It's not abusive like current copyright that locks ideas for two generations.
- amrocha 3y agoJust to be clear: you're arguing that it's actually a good thing to deliberately slow down application of a revolutionary technology, so that people can make money?
- avereveard 3y agoyes, the time frame is limited enough that people can have an incentive to innovate, without being brutally oppressing. we're not locking civilization into the stone age for multiple generations while coros become filthy rich, it's just 20 years and then it's free game for everyone. now, if it were to death + 75 years, or whatever inane number is copyright today, you'd hear a different story from me. but it is not.
- amrocha 3y agoWell then, I'm glad we don't have any emergencies at hand that will be too late to do anything about in 20 years.
- avereveard 3y agosemiconductor without clean power is not going to impact climate change that much for compelling emergencies states can already waive patents, so the relevant mechanisms are already in place if anything momentous happens.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoTransistors, lithium batteries, leds, etc all enjoyed significant patent protection, but still changed the world. I yearn for a Star Trek utopia as the next, but we do live in a capitalistic world where I hope that someone can enjoy outsized rewards for upending some previously insurmountable physical barriers.
- amrocha 3y agoSure, and millions of people die of preventable diseases in the global south every year because pharmaceutical companies deem it profitable to let them die, and because the global north enforces their patents. You don't know how it's gonna go. The scientists are going to be fine, they have their careers guaranteed and will receive many prizes for their work. They don't need a monopoly on a world changing material too.
- avereveard 3y agoWhy would patent be the root cause, they should have access to 2003 level of medicine. If patent was the only thing holding them back, you'd see them having 2000s level of healthcare, which wasn't bad by any stretch.
- amrocha 3y agoNever said it was the only thing
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIt would be the opposite. Nobody with develop technology to utilize it because there are no protections. No MRI, No Fusion, ect.
- amrocha 3y agoBullshit, science isn't driven by patents or funded by private industry.
- s1artibartfast 3y agodoing just about anything with science is.
- amrocha 3y agoOk, so private companies should be happy to compete freely without having to pay licensing fees. Win win.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoWhy compete if someone will just steal your product? It would just be a waste of time and money. Imagine you spend two years and $100,000 to make a invent a clever handheld MRI for the super conductor just to have 100 companies Steal Your Design. You would have been better off watching Netflix
- amrocha 3y agoInventions are still subject to patents. If you make a handheld MRI then others shouldn't be able to steal it from you unless they design their own. The material itself is what shouldn't have a patent on it. Reading comprehension mate, cmon, don't assume bad intent.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago