5 ms·

patents give people an incentive to invent. The particular implementation of patent law may be idiotic, but the general idea of patents most certainly is not.

patents give people an incentive to invent. The particular implementation of patent law may be idiotic, but the general idea of patents most certainly is not. And yes, capitalism worked before patents in the same sense that medicine worked before the discovery of bacteria and germs. The whole point, whether it concerns patents or property rights, is to give people an incentive to make the world better.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
dan_the_welder 17y ago
Right, but what incentive do people actually need? People contribute to Open Source Software. There are many OSS type communities springing up around all kind of interests. People are making the world better every day below the radar of the legal world that patents live in. I believe that people would make the world better without any need for the artificial incentives that are being discussed. Curiosity, altruism and personal satisfaction are powerful forces that are being completely ignored in the current debates about patents and copyright.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Right, but what incentive do people actually need? People contribute to Open Source Software. While I like software more than most people, I don't think that what works in software tells us anything useful about what works elsewhere. Which reminds me. Suppose that I figure out a great way to handle NP complete problems. Assuming that you believe that it would be good for me to disclose said "great way", do you really believe that not-patent reasons are adequate motivation? Then again, I have a patent for a method of branch prediction. Since I'm not an academic, not working at a processor company, and have no interest in starting one, why should I disclose said method?
  - dan_the_welder 17y ago
    Well I think a large factor in altruism is whether or not you are getting your needs met. I know that I am generous when things are going well and stingy when they are not. I also know that I do see when my actions can create a larger good and I usually go for it. That said, if your great way to handle NP complete problems has utility then you could make a closed source application with it and make bucks. No problem. If someone else figures out the same thing on their own and does the same do you feel that it's right that they must pay you? Not legally correct but right? I just paid cash money for a closed source program because it had utility for me. There was no open source project anywhere near mature enough so I ponied up. I realize that things get weird when you are dealing with ideas in capital intensive industries. You can't just go out and start a chip fab to utilize your branch prediction patent. However "Since I'm not an academic, not working at a processor company, and have no interest in starting one, why should I disclose said method?" Because it's doing nothing right now and someone else who has those interests will rediscover it. So what then? I don't know but things are at a strange choke point. Industries are using legal means, patents and legislation, to create insurmountable barriers to entry which is at the crux of our economic woes. I may be full of shit but I design and build products and make a living and I do not patent or design copyright anything formally. My personal belief is that the thieves will take regardless and your only true capital is your reputation and your ability to meet demand. Put another way. I also own a coffee shop. I can't patent that and if another operator moves in next door there is no mechanism in existence that allows me to prevent them or get licensing fees. If I were to build a hotel or gas station, same deal. Anyone could set up shop across the street. If I make mint coffee, put a mint on the pillow or sell green gas there is no protection available. So why are software and ideas any different?
    - anamax 17y ago
      > That said, if your great way to handle NP complete problems has utility then you could make a closed source application with it and make bucks. No problem. There is significant social good in getting me to disclose said method. > My personal belief is that the thieves will take regardless I'm not concerned about thieves. I'm concerned about disclosure - I want more of it because the more disclosure there is, the faster things advance. I'm willing to pay "but I rediscovered it independently" for more disclosure. (That said, I think that such cases are overstated and come about mainly because someone was trying to get there first, for the patent, and missed.) > Industries are using legal means, patents and legislation, to create insurmountable barriers to entry which is at the crux of our economic woes. Patents are not even close to being at the crux of our economic problems. > So why are software and ideas any different? I didn't say that software was different, I said that new ideas were different than old ones. I want to encourage folks to disclose new ideas. We still don't know how GoreTex is made. Feel free to caricture my position as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
yason 17y ago
I disagree. I have a firm belief in that people primarily invent things because they have an idea they just can't silence and NOT because of any future monetary rewards. There might be individuals who can combine the two to some extent but still it appears to me that most of them would still work on their invention even without the rewards. If the great inventors of all time had been motivated by money they would probably have chosen the financial sector. Money just places its usual twist into the process of invention. With money comes the idea that an investment in money and time must in the average produce a return, and inventing just doesn't work this way. Sure it is true that your boss might want to pay you to do research if he can expect you to produce things to be patented, thus giving a company a potential source of future income. But because of the bias towards money and not towards the fundamental answers to the unanswered questions in the inventor's mind, this commonly reduces to aggressively patenting any first thing that you might in some hugely optimistic circumstances consider patentable with regard to PTO's policies. And it seems that this crap rarely brings in any money to the "inventing" company; at best it is just used as fodder in mutual settlements with other companies that have claimed similarly fucked up patents. I just have a bad, bad feeling about patents. The original idea is noble but I'm not all convinced that it has helped the humankind a single bit over the history of years.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

dan_the_welder 17y ago

Right, but what incentive do people actually need? People contribute to Open Source Software. There are many OSS type communities springing up around all kind of interests. People are making the world better every day below the radar of the legal world that patents live in. I believe that people would make the world better without any need for the artificial incentives that are being discussed. Curiosity, altruism and personal satisfaction are powerful forces that are being completely ignored in the current debates about patents and copyright.

anamax 17y ago
> Right, but what incentive do people actually need? People contribute to Open Source Software. While I like software more than most people, I don't think that what works in software tells us anything useful about what works elsewhere. Which reminds me. Suppose that I figure out a great way to handle NP complete problems. Assuming that you believe that it would be good for me to disclose said "great way", do you really believe that not-patent reasons are adequate motivation? Then again, I have a patent for a method of branch prediction. Since I'm not an academic, not working at a processor company, and have no interest in starting one, why should I disclose said method?
- dan_the_welder 17y ago
  Well I think a large factor in altruism is whether or not you are getting your needs met. I know that I am generous when things are going well and stingy when they are not. I also know that I do see when my actions can create a larger good and I usually go for it. That said, if your great way to handle NP complete problems has utility then you could make a closed source application with it and make bucks. No problem. If someone else figures out the same thing on their own and does the same do you feel that it's right that they must pay you? Not legally correct but right? I just paid cash money for a closed source program because it had utility for me. There was no open source project anywhere near mature enough so I ponied up. I realize that things get weird when you are dealing with ideas in capital intensive industries. You can't just go out and start a chip fab to utilize your branch prediction patent. However "Since I'm not an academic, not working at a processor company, and have no interest in starting one, why should I disclose said method?" Because it's doing nothing right now and someone else who has those interests will rediscover it. So what then? I don't know but things are at a strange choke point. Industries are using legal means, patents and legislation, to create insurmountable barriers to entry which is at the crux of our economic woes. I may be full of shit but I design and build products and make a living and I do not patent or design copyright anything formally. My personal belief is that the thieves will take regardless and your only true capital is your reputation and your ability to meet demand. Put another way. I also own a coffee shop. I can't patent that and if another operator moves in next door there is no mechanism in existence that allows me to prevent them or get licensing fees. If I were to build a hotel or gas station, same deal. Anyone could set up shop across the street. If I make mint coffee, put a mint on the pillow or sell green gas there is no protection available. So why are software and ideas any different?
  - anamax 17y ago
    > That said, if your great way to handle NP complete problems has utility then you could make a closed source application with it and make bucks. No problem. There is significant social good in getting me to disclose said method. > My personal belief is that the thieves will take regardless I'm not concerned about thieves. I'm concerned about disclosure - I want more of it because the more disclosure there is, the faster things advance. I'm willing to pay "but I rediscovered it independently" for more disclosure. (That said, I think that such cases are overstated and come about mainly because someone was trying to get there first, for the patent, and missed.) > Industries are using legal means, patents and legislation, to create insurmountable barriers to entry which is at the crux of our economic woes. Patents are not even close to being at the crux of our economic problems. > So why are software and ideas any different? I didn't say that software was different, I said that new ideas were different than old ones. I want to encourage folks to disclose new ideas. We still don't know how GoreTex is made. Feel free to caricture my position as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

yason 17y ago

I disagree. I have a firm belief in that people primarily invent things because they have an idea they just can't silence and NOT because of any future monetary rewards. There might be individuals who can combine the two to some extent but still it appears to me that most of them would still work on their invention even without the rewards. If the great inventors of all time had been motivated by money they would probably have chosen the financial sector. Money just places its usual twist into the process of invention. With money comes the idea that an investment in money and time must in the average produce a return, and inventing just doesn't work this way. Sure it is true that your boss might want to pay you to do research if he can expect you to produce things to be patented, thus giving a company a potential source of future income. But because of the bias towards money and not towards the fundamental answers to the unanswered questions in the inventor's mind, this commonly reduces to aggressively patenting any first thing that you might in some hugely optimistic circumstances consider patentable with regard to PTO's policies. And it seems that this crap rarely brings in any money to the "inventing" company; at best it is just used as fodder in mutual settlements with other companies that have claimed similarly fucked up patents. I just have a bad, bad feeling about patents. The original idea is noble but I'm not all convinced that it has helped the humankind a single bit over the history of years.