3 ms·

For obvious things like this, there shouldn't have been a patent issued. If I however invent the first hyperspace engine, You shouldn't be able to buy one, tak

by drakaal 14y ago

For obvious things like this, there shouldn't have been a patent issued. If I however invent the first hyperspace engine, You shouldn't be able to buy one, take it a part and make your own. That is what patents are supposed to protect. Cotton Gins, and Hyperspace engines. Not Rotate your screen on your phone like you do on your tablet.

toasterlovin 14y ago
"If I however invent the first hyperspace engine, You shouldn't be able to buy one, take it a part and make your own." Why not? What is special about non-obvious ideas, that they should not be as freely transmitted as obvious ones? Also, why should the first person to file for a patent on an idea be the person who gets the monopoly on the idea? With 7 billion minds on this planet, even for non-obvious ideas, it seems highly likely that other people will independently come up with the same idea. It seems so arbitrary that the first person to file some paperwork is the only person to be rewarded.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  What is special about non-obvious ideas, that they should not be as freely transmitted as obvious ones? The sometimes-vast sunk costs of the discoverer.
  - toasterlovin 14y ago
    Sure, but, as you say, ideas are discovered, and because they are discovered as opposed to created, their existence is not dependent on the specific person discovering them. So why assign legal ownership? How are ideas different than a discovery in mathematics?
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      When you're arguing from definitions like this (discovery vs creation) that's a good sign something is wrong with your argument. One could just as easily say 'X has created a hyperspace drive' as 'X has discovered it.' Discovery is rarely so fortuitous as walking along and stumbling across something of value, as if it were a gold nugget lying on the ground. Most 'accidental discoveries' come after lengthy failed searches, much as most 'overnight success' is actually the result of years of hard work. what you're arguing is basically a sort of teleological justification for communism; if innovations of one sort or another would be found anyway, their finding must be part of an inevitable progression and the identity of the individual finder is incidental, thus we should only reward labor in terms of time spent. Since there's now way to predict where the next discovery will come from, we may as well reward everyone's labor equally on the basis of time rather than productivity. I don't mean this as an ideological criticism, if that's what you happen to believe is ideal; I'm just pointing out that that's where you argument goes and I'm not sure if that was where you intended it to do.

by drakaal 14y ago

toasterlovin 14y ago

"If I however invent the first hyperspace engine, You shouldn't be able to buy one, take it a part and make your own." Why not? What is special about non-obvious ideas, that they should not be as freely transmitted as obvious ones? Also, why should the first person to file for a patent on an idea be the person who gets the monopoly on the idea? With 7 billion minds on this planet, even for non-obvious ideas, it seems highly likely that other people will independently come up with the same idea. It seems so arbitrary that the first person to file some paperwork is the only person to be rewarded.

anigbrowl 14y ago
What is special about non-obvious ideas, that they should not be as freely transmitted as obvious ones? The sometimes-vast sunk costs of the discoverer.
- toasterlovin 14y ago
  Sure, but, as you say, ideas are discovered, and because they are discovered as opposed to created, their existence is not dependent on the specific person discovering them. So why assign legal ownership? How are ideas different than a discovery in mathematics?
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    When you're arguing from definitions like this (discovery vs creation) that's a good sign something is wrong with your argument. One could just as easily say 'X has created a hyperspace drive' as 'X has discovered it.' Discovery is rarely so fortuitous as walking along and stumbling across something of value, as if it were a gold nugget lying on the ground. Most 'accidental discoveries' come after lengthy failed searches, much as most 'overnight success' is actually the result of years of hard work. what you're arguing is basically a sort of teleological justification for communism; if innovations of one sort or another would be found anyway, their finding must be part of an inevitable progression and the identity of the individual finder is incidental, thus we should only reward labor in terms of time spent. Since there's now way to predict where the next discovery will come from, we may as well reward everyone's labor equally on the basis of time rather than productivity. I don't mean this as an ideological criticism, if that's what you happen to believe is ideal; I'm just pointing out that that's where you argument goes and I'm not sure if that was where you intended it to do.