4 ms·
Remember theres a difference between getting rid of patents and getting rid of intellectual property. I don't think anyone is serious about suggesting we get
by shadowmint 14y ago
Remember theres a difference between getting rid of patents and getting rid of intellectual property.
I don't think anyone is serious about suggesting we get rid of intellectual property; if you're create something, there should be protections to stop people ripping off your stuff and selling it without paying you for it.
It's patents that are the problem.
Patents let you capture an idea and prevent people from creating new things.
That's not protecting something you've created; it's stifling the creative will of others, because you don't want anyone to compete with you. It's the legislative antithesis of the open market.
Notch wrote about this before too, thoughtfully: http://notch.tumblr.com/post/27751395263/on-patents http://notch.tumblr.com/post/27751395263/on-patents
The US could happily continue to have an major IP 'exports' (however that is appropriately referred to) without patents.
- nancyhua 14y agoHow do you get rid of patents without getting rid of intellectual property? Do you mean setting up better infrastructure for licensing?
- roryokane 14y agoAccording to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property, types of intellectual property other than patents include copyright, trademarks, industrial design rights, and trade secrets. You could get rid of patents while keeping those other types of intellectual property.
- PatentTroll 14y agoAnd what's the efficacy of copyright, trademark, design rights, and trade secrets in protecting a new process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? The first three are not applicable, and the fourth may protect innovation but comes at the expense of no public disclosure.
- planckscnst 14y agoLook at ARM. They license design rights and they're pretty successful.
- nancyhua 14y agoI agree. I don't know how you could have IP without patents.
- cwp 14y agoNone. And that's the point. The idea here is to stop granting monopoly on on these areas. But that won't affect, for example, authors, musicians or marketers. It won't allow anyone to start screening movies without paying royalties, or a new social network called "Facefolio" or proprietary products based on GPL'd code.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Suncho 14y agoI disagree that there should be protections to stop people from "ripping off your stuff" and selling it without paying you for it. Instead, there should be protections to stop people from copying your idea without you getting credit for it. But there don't need to be legal protections. All you need to do is make your idea public to prevent anyone else from claiming they were first. I'm serious about getting rid of all patents and all copyrights.
- columbo 14y agoI don't understand. Say I pay a Valve employee a million dollars for the current working source-code of Half-Life 3. I then compile it and release the first couple working levels for $10 a pop... I should easily be able to make 50 million out of that exercise. What protections would Valve have in your no-copyright, no-ip scenario?
- facundo_olano 14y agoIt's merely conventional that humans can claim the property of ideas. Nobody can "steal" an idea, so there's no way of ripping off the creator. The notion of intellectual property is now widespread because is the source of profit for companies, but it's not "natural" as the property of material stuff. Apart from that, if you think that the current laws protect the creators from third parties profiting with their ideas, how do you think Microsoft got big?