4 ms·

Yup, that's the whole point of patent. To be able to "own" ideas, so nobody else can compete. It takes capitalism from the realm of physical property to a real

Yup, that's the whole point of patent. To be able to "own" ideas, so nobody else can compete. It takes capitalism from the realm of physical property to a realm of "ideas as property". Patents to software were are a mistake. Patents in general are a mistake IMHO.

imtringued 3y ago
The irony is that patents exist to limit your private property rights. You worked hard and made your own game but it violates a broad patent and now you're being sued? Private property is sacred!
- insanitybit 3y ago
  Patents exist to protect small inventors from large companies. If I spend years of my personal time inventing something and I patent it it prevents another larger company from using their existing infrastructure to ramp up way faster on my idea. One of the major issues with patents is that they take too long to expire. If the goal is for me to be able to get up and running before a big competitor takes the idea, I need a few years, not a lifetime.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I mean all of patent law originates from the Statue of Monopolies [1] which was literally designed to screw over small companies. I do find it amusing how much people call startup small and fast and yet some large company can swoop in and execute on their idea and knock them out of business if it weren't for a patent? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      I don't really think either of your statements are that interesting. The first is an extreme oversimplification about England's patent system origins from literally hundreds of years ago, the second is just some sort of straw man that I don't see as being relevant.
  - coldpie 3y ago
    > Patents exist to protect small inventors from large companies. If I spend years of my personal time inventing something and I patent it it prevents another larger company from using their existing infrastructure to ramp up way faster on my idea. It's a cute story, but I suspect the real innovation gains from those small inventors are a teeny, tiny, itty bitty fraction of the harms to innovation caused by the patent system. It's not a good bargain.
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      > It's a cute story, but I suspect the real innovation gains from those small inventors are a teeny, tiny, itty bitty fraction of the harms to innovation caused by the patent system. It's not a good bargain. I don't think anyone would really argue otherwise, certainly I would not. I'm just advocating for reform because I think the idea is really valuable.
  - rcxdude 3y ago
    The original motivation for patents was for people to publish their methods so they didn't get monopolised indefinitely or lost. Any bias towards larger or smaller inventors was incidental (and I would say patents work far more against smaller players than for them: if you're a new entry to the market with a new patented innovation, what's your option to actually make anything with that patent considering all the incumbents have plenty that you probably need to compete at all?)
  - Joker_vD 3y ago
    That didn't really worked well at all for the Wright brothers, did it?
    - insanitybit 3y ago
      No one is claiming it works well.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > Patents exist to protect small inventors from large companies. That's the sticker on the front. Not what actually happens though. Wonder if the Patent Office could be sued for false advertising? "it doesn't do what you're selling it as..." :)
  - nextaccountic 3y ago
    Patents are often framed as something that protects the small, but in reality it has been a rigged game from the start. For one thing, patent litigation is expensive and risky. It's uncertain whether a given lawsuit will be successful. And one of the risks is invalidating the patent itself, so litigators often will take a deal (and earn less than what would be owed if infringement were found) Meanwhile big companies can just spam patent applications, amassing a strategic stockpile that makes it less devastating if one of them is invalidated This whole structure serves the interests of big companies even if they are infringing!
kderbyma 3y ago
Patents are terrible. They don't provide any real protection since you still have to litigate and they don't provide innovation. They are greed tools for evil people to use to stop other people from using a part of our rights.
StrictDabbler 3y ago
It's also a "prisoner's dilemma" that involves playing against every other company on the planet. If you don't patent an idea that you use somebody else will and they will extract rent from you. So you must "defect" by paying lawyers to search through every product you make looking for ideas you've used that don't have a patent. You cannot "cooperate" by refusing to patent ideas. You cannot "cooperate" by refusing to inform people they've violated your patent, because somebody else who uses the idea may also be granted a patent and now you have to go to court or settle. The result is a flood of articles saying "Apple patents obvious idea X! What bastards!", when in fact every major corporation has no sane option to avoid that behavior.
- loupol 3y ago
  The dynamics at play at play are definitely similar, but not completely so. In the prisoner's dilemma, the highest theoretical yield for each prisoner is achieved by everyone "cooperating", but that isn't really the case here. The fixed patent fees and inadequate institutions granting them mean big companies are disproportionately able to rack up on patents and increase their yield as they "defect" and play the game. They could lobby to strongly restrict or even abolish certain types of patents but they don't have much of an interest to do so, since patents solidify their already strong position in the market.
brightlancer 3y ago
> Yup, that's the whole point of patent. To be able to "own" ideas, so nobody else can compete. No, it's to own _your invention_ so someone else (with more money) can't mass-produce your invention while you're only able to produce and sell in Peoria. Are many patents rubbish in one form or another? Yes. Are some patents nothing more than an "idea" without an invention? Yes. Does that mean all patents are just an "idea"? NO. Invention != Idea. > Patents in general are a mistake IMHO. We can and should improve the patent system by shortening the term lengths, denying "obvious" patents, limiting the ability of someone to patent an invention that they never exploit (i.e. build and sell). None of that means we should toss out patents entirely.

imtringued 3y ago

The irony is that patents exist to limit your private property rights. You worked hard and made your own game but it violates a broad patent and now you're being sued? Private property is sacred!

insanitybit 3y ago
Patents exist to protect small inventors from large companies. If I spend years of my personal time inventing something and I patent it it prevents another larger company from using their existing infrastructure to ramp up way faster on my idea. One of the major issues with patents is that they take too long to expire. If the goal is for me to be able to get up and running before a big competitor takes the idea, I need a few years, not a lifetime.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I mean all of patent law originates from the Statue of Monopolies [1] which was literally designed to screw over small companies. I do find it amusing how much people call startup small and fast and yet some large company can swoop in and execute on their idea and knock them out of business if it weren't for a patent? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    I don't really think either of your statements are that interesting. The first is an extreme oversimplification about England's patent system origins from literally hundreds of years ago, the second is just some sort of straw man that I don't see as being relevant.
- coldpie 3y ago
  > Patents exist to protect small inventors from large companies. If I spend years of my personal time inventing something and I patent it it prevents another larger company from using their existing infrastructure to ramp up way faster on my idea. It's a cute story, but I suspect the real innovation gains from those small inventors are a teeny, tiny, itty bitty fraction of the harms to innovation caused by the patent system. It's not a good bargain.
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    > It's a cute story, but I suspect the real innovation gains from those small inventors are a teeny, tiny, itty bitty fraction of the harms to innovation caused by the patent system. It's not a good bargain. I don't think anyone would really argue otherwise, certainly I would not. I'm just advocating for reform because I think the idea is really valuable.
- rcxdude 3y ago
  The original motivation for patents was for people to publish their methods so they didn't get monopolised indefinitely or lost. Any bias towards larger or smaller inventors was incidental (and I would say patents work far more against smaller players than for them: if you're a new entry to the market with a new patented innovation, what's your option to actually make anything with that patent considering all the incumbents have plenty that you probably need to compete at all?)
- Joker_vD 3y ago
  That didn't really worked well at all for the Wright brothers, did it?
  - insanitybit 3y ago
    No one is claiming it works well.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > Patents exist to protect small inventors from large companies. That's the sticker on the front. Not what actually happens though. Wonder if the Patent Office could be sued for false advertising? "it doesn't do what you're selling it as..." :)
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  Patents are often framed as something that protects the small, but in reality it has been a rigged game from the start. For one thing, patent litigation is expensive and risky. It's uncertain whether a given lawsuit will be successful. And one of the risks is invalidating the patent itself, so litigators often will take a deal (and earn less than what would be owed if infringement were found) Meanwhile big companies can just spam patent applications, amassing a strategic stockpile that makes it less devastating if one of them is invalidated This whole structure serves the interests of big companies even if they are infringing!

kderbyma 3y ago

Patents are terrible. They don't provide any real protection since you still have to litigate and they don't provide innovation. They are greed tools for evil people to use to stop other people from using a part of our rights.

StrictDabbler 3y ago

It's also a "prisoner's dilemma" that involves playing against every other company on the planet. If you don't patent an idea that you use somebody else will and they will extract rent from you. So you must "defect" by paying lawyers to search through every product you make looking for ideas you've used that don't have a patent. You cannot "cooperate" by refusing to patent ideas. You cannot "cooperate" by refusing to inform people they've violated your patent, because somebody else who uses the idea may also be granted a patent and now you have to go to court or settle. The result is a flood of articles saying "Apple patents obvious idea X! What bastards!", when in fact every major corporation has no sane option to avoid that behavior.

loupol 3y ago
The dynamics at play at play are definitely similar, but not completely so. In the prisoner's dilemma, the highest theoretical yield for each prisoner is achieved by everyone "cooperating", but that isn't really the case here. The fixed patent fees and inadequate institutions granting them mean big companies are disproportionately able to rack up on patents and increase their yield as they "defect" and play the game. They could lobby to strongly restrict or even abolish certain types of patents but they don't have much of an interest to do so, since patents solidify their already strong position in the market.

brightlancer 3y ago

> Yup, that's the whole point of patent. To be able to "own" ideas, so nobody else can compete. No, it's to own _your invention_ so someone else (with more money) can't mass-produce your invention while you're only able to produce and sell in Peoria. Are many patents rubbish in one form or another? Yes. Are some patents nothing more than an "idea" without an invention? Yes. Does that mean all patents are just an "idea"? NO. Invention != Idea. > Patents in general are a mistake IMHO. We can and should improve the patent system by shortening the term lengths, denying "obvious" patents, limiting the ability of someone to patent an invention that they never exploit (i.e. build and sell). None of that means we should toss out patents entirely.