5 ms·

That's a bit of a bad faith take. You were welcome to go spend the years(?) this chaps dedicated to putting together the research required to build this. If it

That's a bit of a bad faith take. You were welcome to go spend the years(?) this chaps dedicated to putting together the research required to build this. If it works, let him enjoy the fruits of labour.

SequoiaHope 1y ago
Patents do more than let you enjoy the fruits of your labor - the market already allows for that. Patents use the force of law to bar anyone else who might have discovered the same thing from building upon it.
- spookie 1y ago
  Imagine you are just a dude, you did all this work, and go to "market". You are just a dude, therefore business grows slowly. You gather enough attention that some corporation with a lot of bling just goes and copies your thing. Your business fails.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    On the other hand those same corporations can generate, file, and litigate more patents than just a dude could ever hope to. It's 2007. Just-a-dude has a great idea, he notices customers to his website often buy just one item, so he'll let them do that with one simple click. What's this, he's just received a cease and desist? Sorry bro, Amazon patented that 10 years ago.
  - SequoiaHope 1y ago
    Once can just as trivially construct an argument demonstrating the issue with patents but the problem with this style of argument is that patents are not a simple thing. They have global far reaching effects. The government distributing a monopoly on information is a serious interference with the market, and due to patent harmonization efforts across the world, one person filing a patent in New Jersey affects even people in Kenya and Turkey and Thailand. The arguments for patents are often, as I see it, based on a deeply flawed understanding of the motivations of innovators and the affects of open information on innovation. For example most arguments in favor of patents cannot explain how open source works, and so are clearly incomplete or outright wrong.
    - fluoridation 1y ago
      >For example most arguments in favor of patents cannot explain how open source works, and so are clearly incomplete or outright wrong. Can you clarify this? Just curious about what you mean.
      - brookst 1y ago
        I mean it sure sounds like the old “science can’t explain how bumblebees fly, therefore science is incomplete or outright wrong” argument. Which is of course just false.
        SequoiaHope 1y ago
        I replied so feel free to read that.
      - SequoiaHope 1y ago
        I often speak to people who say that no one would innovate without government-secured monopoly on information, and this is clearly false as open source works without this monopoly. As such it seems to me that people who make that claim don’t understand how innovation works. Often I say that if we phased out patents and other IP restrictions, then investments would not stop but they would change from less frequent large investments to more frequent small investments. As long as designs can stay secret until release, there will always be first mover advantage and brand recognition. But you might get smaller investments to build out manufacturing for the next year, rather than bigger longer term investments. The flip side is that stagnant innovators who got lucky once will be subsumed by more agile competitors who can better deliver those innovations to market. Thus investment and innovation wouldn’t stop - markets still ensure certain advantages for innovators - but the nature of investment and innovation wouldn’t shift towards more incremental moves and more diverse actors. A major upside to this is that those best suited to scale an existing nascent technology would be free to compete at doing so. It should be noted that even die hard capitalists are against IP restrictions [1] as they are a massive government investment in the market. So proponents of IP restrictions must reconcile their arguments in favor of this government intervention with their potential interest in free markets. [1] https://youtu.be/GZgLJkj6m0A https://youtu.be/GZgLJkj6m0A
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    I mean we’re basically getting the same result. Tons of businesses, not to mention patent trolls, constantly harass individuals and small businesses trying to get their foot in the door or just run a small, sustainable business. Hell forget my business failing, it’s possible I’ll never even get to try my idea out!
  - serf 1y ago
    you have it entirely backwards; patents dont protect just-a-dude, they protect the corporation. how? just-a-dude doesn't have a team of patent attorneys sitting in his back office waiting for work.
dtj1123 1y ago
Sure, if he'd come up with this primarly using his own resources and time, but he discovered this whilst being paid to conduct research at a public university, a form of institution which is explicitly intended to disseminate knowledge. Society should enjoy the fruits of its investment.
- brookst 1y ago
  Would the university have been willing to invest in the exotic printer and the labor to do the work without the potential upside of a patent? It’s very easy to declare that someone else “should” do a bunch of work and spend a bunch of money for the altruistic benefit of society.
OutOfHere 1y ago
There is not much labor here. Anyone should be able to engineer a model by using deep learning over pictures that map raw images to their hyperspectral variants in various settings, including in adversarial settings that are intended to confuse. All you would need is a sufficiently large and diverse dataset.

SequoiaHope 1y ago

Patents do more than let you enjoy the fruits of your labor - the market already allows for that. Patents use the force of law to bar anyone else who might have discovered the same thing from building upon it.

spookie 1y ago
Imagine you are just a dude, you did all this work, and go to "market". You are just a dude, therefore business grows slowly. You gather enough attention that some corporation with a lot of bling just goes and copies your thing. Your business fails.
- fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
  On the other hand those same corporations can generate, file, and litigate more patents than just a dude could ever hope to. It's 2007. Just-a-dude has a great idea, he notices customers to his website often buy just one item, so he'll let them do that with one simple click. What's this, he's just received a cease and desist? Sorry bro, Amazon patented that 10 years ago.
- SequoiaHope 1y ago
  Once can just as trivially construct an argument demonstrating the issue with patents but the problem with this style of argument is that patents are not a simple thing. They have global far reaching effects. The government distributing a monopoly on information is a serious interference with the market, and due to patent harmonization efforts across the world, one person filing a patent in New Jersey affects even people in Kenya and Turkey and Thailand. The arguments for patents are often, as I see it, based on a deeply flawed understanding of the motivations of innovators and the affects of open information on innovation. For example most arguments in favor of patents cannot explain how open source works, and so are clearly incomplete or outright wrong.
  - fluoridation 1y ago
    >For example most arguments in favor of patents cannot explain how open source works, and so are clearly incomplete or outright wrong. Can you clarify this? Just curious about what you mean.
    - brookst 1y ago
      I mean it sure sounds like the old “science can’t explain how bumblebees fly, therefore science is incomplete or outright wrong” argument. Which is of course just false.
      - SequoiaHope 1y ago
        I replied so feel free to read that.
    - SequoiaHope 1y ago
      I often speak to people who say that no one would innovate without government-secured monopoly on information, and this is clearly false as open source works without this monopoly. As such it seems to me that people who make that claim don’t understand how innovation works. Often I say that if we phased out patents and other IP restrictions, then investments would not stop but they would change from less frequent large investments to more frequent small investments. As long as designs can stay secret until release, there will always be first mover advantage and brand recognition. But you might get smaller investments to build out manufacturing for the next year, rather than bigger longer term investments. The flip side is that stagnant innovators who got lucky once will be subsumed by more agile competitors who can better deliver those innovations to market. Thus investment and innovation wouldn’t stop - markets still ensure certain advantages for innovators - but the nature of investment and innovation wouldn’t shift towards more incremental moves and more diverse actors. A major upside to this is that those best suited to scale an existing nascent technology would be free to compete at doing so. It should be noted that even die hard capitalists are against IP restrictions [1] as they are a massive government investment in the market. So proponents of IP restrictions must reconcile their arguments in favor of this government intervention with their potential interest in free markets. [1] https://youtu.be/GZgLJkj6m0A https://youtu.be/GZgLJkj6m0A
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  I mean we’re basically getting the same result. Tons of businesses, not to mention patent trolls, constantly harass individuals and small businesses trying to get their foot in the door or just run a small, sustainable business. Hell forget my business failing, it’s possible I’ll never even get to try my idea out!
- serf 1y ago
  you have it entirely backwards; patents dont protect just-a-dude, they protect the corporation. how? just-a-dude doesn't have a team of patent attorneys sitting in his back office waiting for work.

dtj1123 1y ago

Sure, if he'd come up with this primarly using his own resources and time, but he discovered this whilst being paid to conduct research at a public university, a form of institution which is explicitly intended to disseminate knowledge. Society should enjoy the fruits of its investment.

brookst 1y ago
Would the university have been willing to invest in the exotic printer and the labor to do the work without the potential upside of a patent? It’s very easy to declare that someone else “should” do a bunch of work and spend a bunch of money for the altruistic benefit of society.

OutOfHere 1y ago

There is not much labor here. Anyone should be able to engineer a model by using deep learning over pictures that map raw images to their hyperspectral variants in various settings, including in adversarial settings that are intended to confuse. All you would need is a sufficiently large and diverse dataset.