4 ms·

Does anyone think the patent system is possibly worth saving? Perhaps some tiny shred of it? In light of the NYT copyright case (where they are clearly backed u

by bbor 3y ago

Does anyone think the patent system is possibly worth saving? Perhaps some tiny shred of it? In light of the NYT copyright case (where they are clearly backed up by precedent, yet also completely at odds with human flourishing) and patent absurdities like this (these??), I really don’t see how one could possibly defend it. If there’s one thing open source and modern academia have shown, it’s that you don’t need these weird absolute arbitrary contracts to incentive R&D.

evdubs 3y ago
Researchers at the Fed agree: > The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.p...
makerdiety 3y ago
Since software disproves the utility of authoritarian restraints on intellectual labor, you should only expect the defenders of patents to be incapable when it comes to physiology. Only animals with dysfunctional genetics would advocate for restrictions on vectors of progress. Naturally as a result of evolution summoning its own enemies following the destruction that years of evolution and growth orchestrates.
- bbor 3y ago
  I would express extreme incredulity at the argument that anyone who has different opinions than I do about intellectual property is deficient in any particular “physiological” way, especially a genetic one. For example an easy example, consider how all your favorite intellectual heroes from eras past were completely wrong about SO much - physics, astronomy, chemistry, and social ethics are common pain points. If Aristotle and Newton can be so wrong, then our opponents aren’t necessarily deficient. But also I’m being pedantic and I agree that the rise of IP laws is a natural consequence of IP having value in the first place.
  - makerdiety 3y ago
    Impositions on intellectual property exist in the first place because the biologically deficient have cleverly acquired a violent weapon to inflict some substantial damage on those organisms which would exclude carriers of genes that evolution itself deems a failure. For evolution's unknown teleos toward fit species and individuals, whatever that particular end looks like according to evolution's grand designs for the world. Life isn't fair and doubly so under the regime of evolution and its objective reality. So there's going to be some antagonism coming from the losers of biological life. That biology affects the possession of technical equipment like software and the socio-cultural valuation of intellectual property laws, for instance, proves itself harmful to natural and effective technological development. The rejection of intellectual freedom incriminates itself in the sphere of natural selection and physical physiology. Blatant advertising and screening of bad genetic dispositions, rationally, for those who take the physical sciences seriously and who also would like to resist purely unnecessary games and drag on progress. But if information wants to be free, if technology wants to hook up with some smart and intelligent individuals, then it will try to find a way to such liberty. Enlisting the aid of free software hackers, for instance. And who knows what that villain would plan next if hacker geeks fail at being good henchmen for it.
bruce511 3y ago
Patents and copyright are two quite different things. I think there's a case to be made for both, but equally it's fair to say both have also been abused. I think your perspective on them likely depends largely on your view-point - if you are just a consumer the you're likely against them, if you are z creator you are likely for them. For example I don't hold patents, so I think software patents are absurd. On the other hand I write commercial software (distributed as source code) so copyright is the only thing that stops others selling my code [1]. If I invented something though, like say an air-fryer I can see the value I patenting that to protect my investment as I pour time and resources into the development. Before writing off the system as a whole, it's probably best to understand both advantages and disadvantages, and also consider multiple points of view (creators, consumers, little guy, big guy and so on.) [1] copyright doesn't stop people copying it. But it does stop others from overtly selling my code, in my market space. For big customers it provides a solid legal "why we should pay for this" argument as failure to do so might result in legal penalties. In other words copyright does enough to ensure I get paid enough to create for this space. Which is (I think) anything gain.
TimTheTinker 3y ago
> Does anyone think the patent system is possibly worth saving? I think the original idea is worth saving. That is, they should incentivize people to publish details about inventions that otherwise would remain trade secrets. I'm glad the inventor of Portland cement filed a patent, for example -- they did get an 20-year monopoly, but for over a century since then, the rest of us have benefited from a publicly known formula and process for the manufacture of Portland cement. Congress should write a law that reforms patents: (1) require them to be effectively how-to manuals: descriptive and complete enough to manufacture the thing from raw materials given the patent's instructions alone, and written in plain language (not legalese) easily readable by other technicians in the given field; (2) outlaw software patents, and (3) phase out patents granted since 2007 within 18 months unless they pass a re-review where they have to clear (1) and (2).
- Anotheroneagain 3y ago
  That has always been a bullshit justification. Inventions are not one off events, almost everything gets rediscovered many times, it's patents that make them so, and restrict the invention to something that can only happen once. It's basically a legal fiction.
  - bbor 3y ago
    Ooo you just unlocked the whole thing for me. According the basic tenets of modern Standpoint theory (and really post-enlightenment empiricism more generally), any technical idea or expression only has meaning in the author’s particular linguistic/professional/intellectual context — in their “standpoint”. So our attempt to apply capitalist property notions to ideas fails from the jump, because our whole culture treats ideas as fallible individual beliefs, not eternal divine forms. Silly capitalist IP lawyers from the past few hundred years, their whole epistemic framework is inconsistent. Somebody should tell them, I’m sure they’d about face…
  - TimTheTinker 3y ago
    I don't think it was BS in the early days of the US, in medieval & renaissance Europe, and in antiquity. Life was harder, populations were orders of magnitude smaller, and a much smaller proportion of people had the means and education to invent things. The middle class was non-existent, and the most modern technology of the time was only available to an elite few. So the legal fiction that inventions could only happen "once" was not so terribly inaccurate; it was even useful. But I agree that given how many people have access to the means of invention today, patent systems have become an absurd notion, and they only create absurd results in the marketplace. The time for patent systems came and is now long gone. Thanks for changing my mind.

by bbor 3y ago

evdubs 3y ago

Researchers at the Fed agree: > The case against patents can be summarized briefly: there is no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.pdf https://files.stlouisfed.org/files/htdocs/wp/2012/2012-035.p...

makerdiety 3y ago

Since software disproves the utility of authoritarian restraints on intellectual labor, you should only expect the defenders of patents to be incapable when it comes to physiology. Only animals with dysfunctional genetics would advocate for restrictions on vectors of progress. Naturally as a result of evolution summoning its own enemies following the destruction that years of evolution and growth orchestrates.

bbor 3y ago
I would express extreme incredulity at the argument that anyone who has different opinions than I do about intellectual property is deficient in any particular “physiological” way, especially a genetic one. For example an easy example, consider how all your favorite intellectual heroes from eras past were completely wrong about SO much - physics, astronomy, chemistry, and social ethics are common pain points. If Aristotle and Newton can be so wrong, then our opponents aren’t necessarily deficient. But also I’m being pedantic and I agree that the rise of IP laws is a natural consequence of IP having value in the first place.
- makerdiety 3y ago
  Impositions on intellectual property exist in the first place because the biologically deficient have cleverly acquired a violent weapon to inflict some substantial damage on those organisms which would exclude carriers of genes that evolution itself deems a failure. For evolution's unknown teleos toward fit species and individuals, whatever that particular end looks like according to evolution's grand designs for the world. Life isn't fair and doubly so under the regime of evolution and its objective reality. So there's going to be some antagonism coming from the losers of biological life. That biology affects the possession of technical equipment like software and the socio-cultural valuation of intellectual property laws, for instance, proves itself harmful to natural and effective technological development. The rejection of intellectual freedom incriminates itself in the sphere of natural selection and physical physiology. Blatant advertising and screening of bad genetic dispositions, rationally, for those who take the physical sciences seriously and who also would like to resist purely unnecessary games and drag on progress. But if information wants to be free, if technology wants to hook up with some smart and intelligent individuals, then it will try to find a way to such liberty. Enlisting the aid of free software hackers, for instance. And who knows what that villain would plan next if hacker geeks fail at being good henchmen for it.

bruce511 3y ago

Patents and copyright are two quite different things. I think there's a case to be made for both, but equally it's fair to say both have also been abused. I think your perspective on them likely depends largely on your view-point - if you are just a consumer the you're likely against them, if you are z creator you are likely for them. For example I don't hold patents, so I think software patents are absurd. On the other hand I write commercial software (distributed as source code) so copyright is the only thing that stops others selling my code [1]. If I invented something though, like say an air-fryer I can see the value I patenting that to protect my investment as I pour time and resources into the development. Before writing off the system as a whole, it's probably best to understand both advantages and disadvantages, and also consider multiple points of view (creators, consumers, little guy, big guy and so on.) [1] copyright doesn't stop people copying it. But it does stop others from overtly selling my code, in my market space. For big customers it provides a solid legal "why we should pay for this" argument as failure to do so might result in legal penalties. In other words copyright does enough to ensure I get paid enough to create for this space. Which is (I think) anything gain.

TimTheTinker 3y ago

> Does anyone think the patent system is possibly worth saving? I think the original idea is worth saving. That is, they should incentivize people to publish details about inventions that otherwise would remain trade secrets. I'm glad the inventor of Portland cement filed a patent, for example -- they did get an 20-year monopoly, but for over a century since then, the rest of us have benefited from a publicly known formula and process for the manufacture of Portland cement. Congress should write a law that reforms patents: (1) require them to be effectively how-to manuals: descriptive and complete enough to manufacture the thing from raw materials given the patent's instructions alone, and written in plain language (not legalese) easily readable by other technicians in the given field; (2) outlaw software patents, and (3) phase out patents granted since 2007 within 18 months unless they pass a re-review where they have to clear (1) and (2).

Anotheroneagain 3y ago
That has always been a bullshit justification. Inventions are not one off events, almost everything gets rediscovered many times, it's patents that make them so, and restrict the invention to something that can only happen once. It's basically a legal fiction.
- bbor 3y ago
  Ooo you just unlocked the whole thing for me. According the basic tenets of modern Standpoint theory (and really post-enlightenment empiricism more generally), any technical idea or expression only has meaning in the author’s particular linguistic/professional/intellectual context — in their “standpoint”. So our attempt to apply capitalist property notions to ideas fails from the jump, because our whole culture treats ideas as fallible individual beliefs, not eternal divine forms. Silly capitalist IP lawyers from the past few hundred years, their whole epistemic framework is inconsistent. Somebody should tell them, I’m sure they’d about face…
- TimTheTinker 3y ago
  I don't think it was BS in the early days of the US, in medieval & renaissance Europe, and in antiquity. Life was harder, populations were orders of magnitude smaller, and a much smaller proportion of people had the means and education to invent things. The middle class was non-existent, and the most modern technology of the time was only available to an elite few. So the legal fiction that inventions could only happen "once" was not so terribly inaccurate; it was even useful. But I agree that given how many people have access to the means of invention today, patent systems have become an absurd notion, and they only create absurd results in the marketplace. The time for patent systems came and is now long gone. Thanks for changing my mind.