4 ms·
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 l
by 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 agoI 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).