4 ms·
> If we take the position that an inventor should be able to try and get profit from their invention The premise is flawed, the conclusion can only be wrong.
by rakoo 3y ago
> If we take the position that an inventor should be able to try and get profit from their invention
The premise is flawed, the conclusion can only be wrong.
Patents are an invention by the bourgeoisie to extend their control of the production of anything and extract as much money from it, but to make it acceptable they have the play the image of the "lone inventor in their garage". This inventor doesn't exist. No invention ever came out of nowhere, based on nothing more than hard work and selfless involvement. Nothing would be achievable without the help of society, past and present, without cooperation, and to close that off is to go against the very reason we as a species survive. We need shared creation of art, of technologies, of ideas, because this helps everyone. Look at Volvo giving away their rights on the 3-point security belt, or the penicillin being openly distributed; to favor individual wealth over collective well-being is borderline criminal.
Patents do not serve individuals, the individuals are not business people. Patents only serve companies which by definition steal the production of its workers for private profits.
Patents do not allow creation; patents prevent creation. Look at the history of steam machines and how many people were involved in all the subtle, incremental improvements. It's not just one guy suddenly finding out everything from scratch. One of them put a patent on his invention and froze the development of the steam machine for decades before allowing it to continue.
- Angostura 3y ago> No invention ever came out of nowhere, based on nothing more than hard work and selfless involvement Straw man. No-one has suggested that the inventor invented something in a complete vacuum without support from society.
- rakoo 3y agoAnd yet that's exactly what the patent model claims: The invention is the fruit of a single mind who must get the entirety of money ever produced by the commercialization of the product. It is a glorification of individualism
- freejazz 3y agoThe Patent model doesn't claim that at all, it assumes the opposite. That's one reason why patents are public.
- Angostura 3y agoClearly not. At the trite level, you can have a patent with multiple authors. But more generally, many patents are small incremental improvements on existing device. In this case, the patent only covers that incremental improvements. Overly broad claims in patents tend to lead to them getting invalidated.
- thfuran 3y ago>The premise is flawed, the conclusion can only be wrong. That's the fallacy fallacy.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoThey went on to support their point. To ignore that is...the fallacy fallacy fallacy?
- thfuran 3y agoNo, they went on to make specific claims essentially unrelated to that initial general claim.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoTo continue your point, here is my proposal to replace intellectual property: Pay the inventor for their work, not the result of that work. This has several advantages: 1. Inventors get paid to fail. Failure is a critical step in the process of invention. 2. Inventors get paid immediately. How can an inventor be expected to have time to invent something if their only means of income happens after the work of invention? Any person who is working should earn a living. 3. An inventor can quit. If you aren't getting anywhere on a project, then you can go do something else! 4. Another inventor can pick up where they left off. Fresh eyes bring new perspective.
- thfuran 3y agoYou're proposing that the state pay a good wage to anyone who chooses to be a full time inventor, regardless of the results? Does that include paying for whatever facilities might be required?
- thomastjeffery 3y agoWho said anything about the state? All of these things are already paid for. Either that continues to happen, or invention just stops happening altogether. Obviously there is profit to be made from new ideas, so there should be plenty of incentive to invest in inventors. Inventors could also collaborate and unionize. Many already do.
- thfuran 3y ago>Who said anything about the state? By implication, you: >here is my proposal to replace intellectual property Property rights, intellectual or otherwise, are granted and enforced by the state. So too, it would seem, might be their replacements. But it sounds like you're actually proposing simply eliminating all current IP law rather than replacing it with anything.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoMy proposal, taken literally is to eliminate all IP law, and to not replace it with anything. My proposal, taken in context is to meet the same needs that IP intended to meet, but without any state involvement.
- throw10920 3y agoThis is a lot of evidence-less claims and opinions masquerading as fact. Looks like someone has an irrational grudge.