9 ms·
1. We don't need to appreciate innovation by granting a monopoly. Math is thriving, even though none of that is eligible for patents. 2. You can be first to ma
by jeswin 13y ago
1. We don't need to appreciate innovation by granting a monopoly. Math is thriving, even though none of that is eligible for patents.
2. You can be first to market by developing it secretly, perhaps collaborating with a larger company in exchange for royalties. That may not earn you as much money as a patent-monopoly, but that's fine.
In any case, if I independently invent something I should have full rights to pursue it however I want. That someone else 'thought of it first' is unrelated to my inventing it. That's the free world I wanna live in.
These inventions are built on our shared knowledge. Nobody deserves a patent for it. Inventors will invent anyway.
- kbenson 13y agoI'm mostly with you, I just wanted to point out what looked like a missed connection in the earlier statement. That said, I'm not completely sold on whether patents are entirely useless. Certain types of invention seem to fit the model better than others. Then again, I've heard of instances where patents, or something similar, could help innovation. One example is the business poaching I've heard of here, where someone starts exploring an idea as a service, only to shortly thereafter have a separate services company run with the idea, and put out a better executed version quicker than the originator because of more capital. At first glance that seems unfair to the originator but better for society, but if enough people think it's not worth entering the market because they'll be scooped, we all lose out on those ideas. I don't have a solution, and I don't think the answer is simple.