4 ms·

If they make the tech accessible for millions of people and improve reality, how is that a bad thing? I am confused. Unless you are too much emotionally caught

If they make the tech accessible for millions of people and improve reality, how is that a bad thing? I am confused. Unless you are too much emotionally caught up in the word "steal" and bunch of sentences.

galbar 3y ago
Stealing is morally bad, regardless of the good effects the act of stealing may have.
- rand1239 3y ago
  > morally bad, Apart from those words, is there anything else you think is of concern compared to the progress made by humanity by making the tech available to millions of people?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - angus-prune 3y ago
    The debate isn't about whether the technology should be available to millions but whether (and how much) apple should have to pay for the technology. Either Apple are guilty or being stingy, or Massimo are guilty of being greedy. Either could be responsible for the conflict.
    - rand1239 3y ago
      I couldn't care less whatever is the interpretation of reality is. You seems to be interested in who is guilty or not. I am not interested in that. It's just some thoughts in your mind. The end result was that tech became more accessible and which is all I care about.
bloppe 3y ago
Patents are a pragmatic contract between inventors and society: - In order to be granted a patent, inventors must publish detailed descriptions of their inventions, including step-by-step instructions on how to re-create them. The inventions become public knowledge. - In exchange for publishing the details of their inventions, society grants a temporary exclusive right to market the technology. Without this system, the only way to safeguard a technological advantage would be to keep it secret. Inventors would be incentivized to maintain maximum secrecy for all new inventions. That would be bad for society, and inconvenient for inventors. The patent system is an acknowledgement of this reality. Even though it seems a bit ridiculous, we allow people to claim temporary "ownership" of their new ideas, in order to incentivize the publishing of research, which eventually enters the public domain. Clearly, there's some room for argument on the details of this specific case, but assuming the patent is legitimate, and that Apple infringed on it, then it would be bad for the long-term progress of science for us to let them get away with it.
- dylan604 3y ago
  > Without this system, the only way to safeguard a technological advantage would be to keep it secret. Inventors would be incentivized to maintain maximum secrecy for all new inventions. That would be bad for society, and inconvenient for inventors. And in today's world where reversing a product is pretty much a guarantee if the product is something anyone wants, the secret won't be kept for too long. (shhh, everyone's secret sauce is pretty much thousand island) Once the secret is out, anyone that wants to will copy it and now there's no protection.
  - bloppe 3y ago
    Ya, clearly patents are a good deal for inventors. I just think a lot of people fail to realize that it's also a good deal for society. Without patents, who knows how many ideas would be stuck in the heads of individual people, reluctant not only to try to bring them to market, but to even discuss them with anybody. Why would anybody want to become an inventor, if there were so little upside?
    - 3y ago
briffle 3y ago
I bet there are lots of small time inventors that lack the capital to setup a worldwide manufacturing and distribution infrastructure right off the bat that may disagree with you.

galbar 3y ago

Stealing is morally bad, regardless of the good effects the act of stealing may have.

rand1239 3y ago
> morally bad, Apart from those words, is there anything else you think is of concern compared to the progress made by humanity by making the tech available to millions of people?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- angus-prune 3y ago
  The debate isn't about whether the technology should be available to millions but whether (and how much) apple should have to pay for the technology. Either Apple are guilty or being stingy, or Massimo are guilty of being greedy. Either could be responsible for the conflict.
  - rand1239 3y ago
    I couldn't care less whatever is the interpretation of reality is. You seems to be interested in who is guilty or not. I am not interested in that. It's just some thoughts in your mind. The end result was that tech became more accessible and which is all I care about.

bloppe 3y ago

Patents are a pragmatic contract between inventors and society: - In order to be granted a patent, inventors must publish detailed descriptions of their inventions, including step-by-step instructions on how to re-create them. The inventions become public knowledge. - In exchange for publishing the details of their inventions, society grants a temporary exclusive right to market the technology. Without this system, the only way to safeguard a technological advantage would be to keep it secret. Inventors would be incentivized to maintain maximum secrecy for all new inventions. That would be bad for society, and inconvenient for inventors. The patent system is an acknowledgement of this reality. Even though it seems a bit ridiculous, we allow people to claim temporary "ownership" of their new ideas, in order to incentivize the publishing of research, which eventually enters the public domain. Clearly, there's some room for argument on the details of this specific case, but assuming the patent is legitimate, and that Apple infringed on it, then it would be bad for the long-term progress of science for us to let them get away with it.

dylan604 3y ago
> Without this system, the only way to safeguard a technological advantage would be to keep it secret. Inventors would be incentivized to maintain maximum secrecy for all new inventions. That would be bad for society, and inconvenient for inventors. And in today's world where reversing a product is pretty much a guarantee if the product is something anyone wants, the secret won't be kept for too long. (shhh, everyone's secret sauce is pretty much thousand island) Once the secret is out, anyone that wants to will copy it and now there's no protection.
- bloppe 3y ago
  Ya, clearly patents are a good deal for inventors. I just think a lot of people fail to realize that it's also a good deal for society. Without patents, who knows how many ideas would be stuck in the heads of individual people, reluctant not only to try to bring them to market, but to even discuss them with anybody. Why would anybody want to become an inventor, if there were so little upside?
  - 3y ago

briffle 3y ago

I bet there are lots of small time inventors that lack the capital to setup a worldwide manufacturing and distribution infrastructure right off the bat that may disagree with you.