3 ms·
> I don't think patent law should be concerned with what inventors "deserve" in some moral sense. "Deserve" in itself is a meaningless word, a tribal signal. I
by pessimizer 2mo ago
> I don't think patent law should be concerned with what inventors "deserve" in some moral sense.
"Deserve" in itself is a meaningless word, a tribal signal. It's interesting to figure out what different people actually mean by "deserve" when they say it (followed the procedure, fulfilled the agreement, expended a sufficient amount of effort, suffered, were responsible in some way for its existence, is alive, has not taken from others, is loved) but there's nothing really there to base anything on. It's a political word.
The real world equivalent is "is entitled to."
edit: it doesn't help that the philosophical area that focuses on what people "deserve" is called "desert." It's one of the cases where where English sorely needs Spanish-style accent markers. "Desért."
- boomlinde 2mo agoWhat someone "is entitled to" is of course also largely a political phenomenon, a social construct. Just like the idea of what someone deserves it supposes a principle according to which that can be said. For example, ideas of what people deserve according to moral principles often precede legal principles that entitle them to that. But it is only in terms of those moral principles that someone can deserve that, and in terms of those legal principles that someone can be entitled to it.