3 ms·
You can't avoid the issue that patents aren't property. You are free to believe that patents encourage invention, but it's still government-granted monopoly, n
by jivatmanx 14y ago
You can't avoid the issue that patents aren't property.
You are free to believe that patents encourage invention, but it's still government-granted monopoly, not property.
If patents are now more valuable to hold and sue, rather than use in product, than that's failed, and the solution is to make patents valid only when they're being used.
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
-Thomas Jefferson
- rayiner 14y agoHint: all property is a government monopoly.
- jivatmanx 14y agoProperty has existed since the very beginning of settled societies, throughout the world. Civil law is a later development that simply codified the concept. There are very strong arguments for the existence of patents in areas that can be defined easily, for example drugs, materials, in fact I'm undecided there. The argument for patents is that they encourage both innovation, and resulting products. However a patent is still not property and thus there is no natural right to it.