3 ms·

What would you suggest? Do you have any specific reforms to the laws regarding patents in mind? What would happen in those cases?

mort96 3y ago
I see very little value in patents in general, and I certainly don't think they should exist for things like fundamental research. Patents exist as a hack to make up for the fact that markets don't deal well with situations where investment from one entity benefits everyone. Patents ensure that only the company doing the research gets to benefit from it, robbing the world as a whole from the progress which could have stemmed from that research. Why can't we leave the markets to do their thing, and have an alternative mode of research whose funding doesn't depend on keeping the fruits of the research out of the hands of humanity? Why can't we leave companies to do whatever research they want, but put a bunch more money into public research institutions and research non-profits and the like? If you absolutely want to keep research funding private, I can think of other options as well. Instead of making the reward a government-backed monopoly over the use of an innovation, what if the reward was, say, a direct monetary reward through tax reductions, or maybe a system where the government could subsidize products with the innovation for some time period so that competitors have a disadvantage in the market. I'm sure someone smarter than me could think of other, better solutions. Point is, there are lots of options. Using state power to keep the innovation out of the hands of humanity seems like the worst of them.
psychoslave 3y ago
well, put a limit on how much profits you can make through patent. Like based on how much r&d was spent?
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
  - psychoslave 3y ago
    No system is flawless. As the article points, you can at least control and capture the biggest dishonest players.

mort96 3y ago

I see very little value in patents in general, and I certainly don't think they should exist for things like fundamental research. Patents exist as a hack to make up for the fact that markets don't deal well with situations where investment from one entity benefits everyone. Patents ensure that only the company doing the research gets to benefit from it, robbing the world as a whole from the progress which could have stemmed from that research. Why can't we leave the markets to do their thing, and have an alternative mode of research whose funding doesn't depend on keeping the fruits of the research out of the hands of humanity? Why can't we leave companies to do whatever research they want, but put a bunch more money into public research institutions and research non-profits and the like? If you absolutely want to keep research funding private, I can think of other options as well. Instead of making the reward a government-backed monopoly over the use of an innovation, what if the reward was, say, a direct monetary reward through tax reductions, or maybe a system where the government could subsidize products with the innovation for some time period so that competitors have a disadvantage in the market. I'm sure someone smarter than me could think of other, better solutions. Point is, there are lots of options. Using state power to keep the innovation out of the hands of humanity seems like the worst of them.

psychoslave 3y ago

well, put a limit on how much profits you can make through patent. Like based on how much r&d was spent?

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting
- psychoslave 3y ago
  No system is flawless. As the article points, you can at least control and capture the biggest dishonest players.