3 ms·
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
by 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 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.
- yetihehe 3y agoDo you think that having a monopoly on some invention will prevent widespread usage of that invention? Like, "yeah, we invented fully clean carbonless way of making energy for 1% of current prices, but no one will have it"? Currently it just means that the creator of widely usable technology will have some percentage of money for others using his invention instead of others making all the money from his invention while he has a pat on the back.
- amrocha 3y agoYes, I do think that, because that is literally what has happened before. Companies price their offerings so that the global north will buy it, and the global south will have to pay proportionately extortionate amounts, with no relation whatsoever to the cost of production or research.
- avereveard 3y agoIf that was the limit, the global South would be able to live in 2003 global North standards, because patents only last 20 years. It seems so incredibly reductive to attribute global South issues to patents.
- amrocha 3y agoNever said it was the only issue. Reading comprehension.