3 ms·
Indeed. But one could have known as much by analyzing the moral case against patents: patents are unjust restraint of one human being from acting to think, crea
by wissler 14y ago
Indeed. But one could have known as much by analyzing the moral case against patents: patents are unjust restraint of one human being from acting to think, create, and sell. There is no possible argument to say that you can bind another human down "because I thought of it first", really patents reflect the moral mentality of a two-year-old.
- esrauch 14y agoHow do you propose someone could demonstrate that they independently arrived at the same idea, rather than simply observing the existing idea. If you think "I thought of it and no on else did" is not worthy of being protected property then that is fine and you can make that argument and I wouldn't necessarily argue against you, but I don't think it is accurate to solely argue against patents by characterizing them solely as protection against random other people independently coming to the same idea without the original inventor affecting them at all.
- dantheman 14y agoExactly, patents and intellectual "property" always refer to arguments relating to physical property; when by their nature the explicitly limit the rights you have to use physical property that you own. It's outrageous.
- rayiner 14y agoAt least conception ally, patents aren't a restraint on creating, they're a restraint on copying.
- ericingram 14y agoNot if they are used to prevent someone from creating a new version of something that implements some pattern which looks like a previously patented thing. Turns out this classifies most innovation ever.
- nickpinkston 14y agoIf by conception you mean looking at "you get a monopoly to make X related product" without looking past to "meaning someone else can't make Y related product"
- wissler 14y agoNo, they are a restraint on original creation. If your original creation is conceptually similar to something else filed with a bureaucrat, you lose your original work. If you are a small company, and someone claims that it's similar, then you probably loose your work regardless of whether it's similar. Patents are neo-feudalism.
- davidw 14y agoWith something like drug patents, there's a lot more going in than 'I thought of it first'. Remember, you're supposed to have a working implementation to patent something, too. > two-year-old. Name calling is not a pleasant or productive way to debate a complex issue.
- wissler 14y agoThere's nothing particularly complicated here. We are dealing more with mythology and barbaric thought processes than with an actually complicated problem.
- davidw 14y agoThere you go again. The actual problem is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Possible_solutions It's not easy, and trying to create property artificially is hardly 'barbaric', even though it has its drawbacks (unfortunately, so do all the other solutions).
- wissler 14y agoIt is barbaric to think that if you think of something and create something based on it, then you can attack someone (whether directly or via the government is beside the point) and take their property if they think of and create it too. It's simply barbaric. There's no possible rational/moral justification here. Now, you may not see the barbarism clearly or at all. But that merely explains why you don't why calling it barbarism.
- davidw 14y agoThere is some rational justification explained in detail in the link I posted: creating artificial property is one way of confronting the underprovisioning of public goods. It's imperfect, but so are all the other ways, and so is simply letting them be underprovisioned. Calling people barbaric for disagreeing with you is not really ok in this community.