4 ms·

I've said this before here on HN, but you won't fix a system that's a gigantic clusterfuck of bureaucracy by introducing more bureaucracy. There's but one way

I've said this before here on HN, but you won't fix a system that's a gigantic clusterfuck of bureaucracy by introducing more bureaucracy. There's but one way to "fix" patents, and that's to get rid of them and never try again. We've seen over the last decades (or, indeed, since their inception) that they do nothing but stifle and harm progress, both actively and passively. Today, in a globalized, digitally connected world, progress is speeding up and will continue to do so, probably by magnitudes. The patent system is utterly unsustainable in such a world, and we need to abolish it before it causes even more irreversible harm to humanity.

noonespecial 15y ago
Of course it is and we should, but way too many big money interests have way too much stake in the system to just shut it off. Ron Paul has more chance of abolishing the IRS. Lets just start with the "Be a dick, lose your patent" act. Baby steps.
- ktizo 15y ago
  And after this act comes out, who do you expect to have their patents removed for 'being a dick', would it be the people with cheap lawyers, or perhaps the people with lots of expensive lawyers? Also, this issue is endemic to the whole disabilities industry. If someone has a specific deformity and needs something shaped to that deformity, then that is a patent right there, covering everyone with a similar deformity who needs that functionality. And for some reason this logic doesn't fail the obviousness test.
netcan 15y ago
Here is the problem in this & many other debates, especially online: "that they do nothing but stifle and harm progress" Maybe, on balance, they do more harm than good. But they don't only do harm. For one thing, they're embedded into the way a lot of things are done (some of them important) and you can't know in advance how changing it will affect stuff. They also do what they're supposed to do (incentivize innovation) at least some of the time.
- cabalamat 15y ago
  > Maybe, on balance, they do more harm than good. Name one, just one, software patent that has verifiably done more good than harm. Because I don't know of any.
VMG 15y ago
All kinds of patents? Software patents? Who will fund expensive medical research for new drugs if the company next door can just clone your work with minimal expenses? You have to address the free rider problem here.
- polymatter 15y ago
  Thats a common argument, but relying on the profit motive to fund healthcare leads to a clear priority mismatch. Years of expensive treatment is more profitable than a single dose cure. Vanity problems of the rich (hair loss, wrinkles, skin sagging) have a higher priority than problems of the poor (AIDS). I have no reference atm, but I'm sure I read that medical research gets most of its funding from public bodies anyway. Its a lot anyway and I'm not convinvced that it wouldn't be better to be done all publically.
- Peaker 15y ago
  Here is an interesting writeup about pharma patents: http://thepirateparty.com/index.php/patent-elimination/68 http://thepirateparty.com/index.php/patent-elimination/68

noonespecial 15y ago

Of course it is and we should, but way too many big money interests have way too much stake in the system to just shut it off. Ron Paul has more chance of abolishing the IRS. Lets just start with the "Be a dick, lose your patent" act. Baby steps.

ktizo 15y ago
And after this act comes out, who do you expect to have their patents removed for 'being a dick', would it be the people with cheap lawyers, or perhaps the people with lots of expensive lawyers? Also, this issue is endemic to the whole disabilities industry. If someone has a specific deformity and needs something shaped to that deformity, then that is a patent right there, covering everyone with a similar deformity who needs that functionality. And for some reason this logic doesn't fail the obviousness test.

netcan 15y ago

Here is the problem in this & many other debates, especially online: "that they do nothing but stifle and harm progress" Maybe, on balance, they do more harm than good. But they don't only do harm. For one thing, they're embedded into the way a lot of things are done (some of them important) and you can't know in advance how changing it will affect stuff. They also do what they're supposed to do (incentivize innovation) at least some of the time.

cabalamat 15y ago
> Maybe, on balance, they do more harm than good. Name one, just one, software patent that has verifiably done more good than harm. Because I don't know of any.

VMG 15y ago

All kinds of patents? Software patents? Who will fund expensive medical research for new drugs if the company next door can just clone your work with minimal expenses? You have to address the free rider problem here.

polymatter 15y ago
Thats a common argument, but relying on the profit motive to fund healthcare leads to a clear priority mismatch. Years of expensive treatment is more profitable than a single dose cure. Vanity problems of the rich (hair loss, wrinkles, skin sagging) have a higher priority than problems of the poor (AIDS). I have no reference atm, but I'm sure I read that medical research gets most of its funding from public bodies anyway. Its a lot anyway and I'm not convinvced that it wouldn't be better to be done all publically.
Peaker 15y ago
Here is an interesting writeup about pharma patents: http://thepirateparty.com/index.php/patent-elimination/68 http://thepirateparty.com/index.php/patent-elimination/68