4 ms·

I'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 f

I'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 ago
Long, 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 ago
    Aren'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 ago
I 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 ago
  Patent 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 ago
    Just 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 ago
      yes, 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 ago
        Well 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 ago
        semiconductor 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.

amrocha 3y ago

Long, 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 ago
  Aren'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 ago

I 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 ago
Patent 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 ago
  Just 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 ago
    yes, 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 ago
      Well 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 ago
        semiconductor 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.