5 ms·

This is what happens currently anyway, no? The only people who can afford to deal with patent/IP law properly are existing, larger companies. I claim the oppo

by ronaldx 13y ago

This is what happens currently anyway, no? The only people who can afford to deal with patent/IP law properly are existing, larger companies. I claim the opposite of you: that current law exclusively helps the existing, larger companies.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
http://millcomputing.com/ http://millcomputing.com/ seems to be an exception to that rule. Now I don't know how much investment money they have, nor do I know how they would have fared in a world without patents. But for now, they seem to be doing fine. I just hope they don't run into some patent from the big players.
amirmc 13y ago
> "I claim the opposite of you: that current law exclusively helps the existing, larger companies." I'm trying to point out that it's driven by whoever is bigger and has deeper pockets. Either for patent fees or for the lawyers who litigate or for the resources to duplicate. In other words, the 'little guy' is going to get screwed either way so I'm arguing against the specific statement I quoted in my earlier comment (i.e that without patents, someone can invent something and get rich). I'm not claiming that the current system is ok (far from it), but I do see the benefits of a properly functioning patent system -- (but excluding software patents, they make no sense to me).
- ronaldx 13y ago
  My argument goes as follows: 1. If you invent something, a larger company has the opportunity to copy you. This is inevitable: as an independent inventor, IP law (as it exists) does not help you because you typically would not have the resources to use it effectively against a lawyer-readied corporation. 2. If you execute your invention in a way which the larger company cannot easily copy, you can become independently successful. 3. In cases where (2) takes profits away from the larger company, they will use IP law to prevent you from doing so. This is the primary use case of IP law. So we're agreed that the little guy gets screwed either way, but I think IP law gives the big guy an extra round of ammunition.
  - amirmc 13y ago
    I guess we're taking different viewpoints on this. I'm considering the ability of a new player to protect and exploit their invention (defensive), whereas you're thinking of an existing player using the same system to prevent others encroaching on their market (offensive). Both are valid. I'm not disagreeing with your argument. I'm specifically disagreeing with the fourth paragraph of the top post. It presumes that everything is already 'invented', which I disagree with. What he/she is really saying is that 'whoever has the most lawyers will win'. It's not even about IP law at that point. Edit: Yes, the way things work now IP can simply work as ammunition for BigCo. However, even if we did away with it, BigCo's boots/fists/whatever are still bigger than yours (so the "Without patents" part does not hold up).

by ronaldx 13y ago

loup-vaillant 13y ago

http://millcomputing.com/ http://millcomputing.com/ seems to be an exception to that rule. Now I don't know how much investment money they have, nor do I know how they would have fared in a world without patents. But for now, they seem to be doing fine. I just hope they don't run into some patent from the big players.

amirmc 13y ago

> "I claim the opposite of you: that current law exclusively helps the existing, larger companies." I'm trying to point out that it's driven by whoever is bigger and has deeper pockets. Either for patent fees or for the lawyers who litigate or for the resources to duplicate. In other words, the 'little guy' is going to get screwed either way so I'm arguing against the specific statement I quoted in my earlier comment (i.e that without patents, someone can invent something and get rich). I'm not claiming that the current system is ok (far from it), but I do see the benefits of a properly functioning patent system -- (but excluding software patents, they make no sense to me).

ronaldx 13y ago
My argument goes as follows: 1. If you invent something, a larger company has the opportunity to copy you. This is inevitable: as an independent inventor, IP law (as it exists) does not help you because you typically would not have the resources to use it effectively against a lawyer-readied corporation. 2. If you execute your invention in a way which the larger company cannot easily copy, you can become independently successful. 3. In cases where (2) takes profits away from the larger company, they will use IP law to prevent you from doing so. This is the primary use case of IP law. So we're agreed that the little guy gets screwed either way, but I think IP law gives the big guy an extra round of ammunition.
- amirmc 13y ago
  I guess we're taking different viewpoints on this. I'm considering the ability of a new player to protect and exploit their invention (defensive), whereas you're thinking of an existing player using the same system to prevent others encroaching on their market (offensive). Both are valid. I'm not disagreeing with your argument. I'm specifically disagreeing with the fourth paragraph of the top post. It presumes that everything is already 'invented', which I disagree with. What he/she is really saying is that 'whoever has the most lawyers will win'. It's not even about IP law at that point. Edit: Yes, the way things work now IP can simply work as ammunition for BigCo. However, even if we did away with it, BigCo's boots/fists/whatever are still bigger than yours (so the "Without patents" part does not hold up).