3 ms·

Imagine if the Chinese were able to patent the process of mining and processing the rare metals. And bombarded everyone with frivolous lawsuits. Good thing thes

Imagine if the Chinese were able to patent the process of mining and processing the rare metals. And bombarded everyone with frivolous lawsuits. Good thing these crazy scenarios don't happen.

davidw 12y ago
> patent the process of mining and processing the rare metals If they were to make big and non-obvious improvements that allow everyone to mine and/or process more efficiently, then that's exactly what patents are supposed to do: they get a temporary monopoly on those improvements in return for sharing them with the world. But I have the feeling you're just spouting off a bit :-)
- thescrewdriver 12y ago
  Since when did only non-obvious improvements get patented?
- briantakita 12y ago
  I suppose you don't agree with the phrase "standing on the shoulder of giants". The fact that, through history, people create novelty & discovery without the "incentive" of ownership, invalidates the "need" for patents to provide an "incentive" of exclusivity. Re: patents, those who own the capital also own the patents. It's simply a mechanism to control others by restricting who can use an idea originally developed by "standing on the shoulder of giants". So if you own lots of capital, patents allow you to control others. If you don't own lots of capital, patents are oppressive.
  - davidw 12y ago
    > The fact that, through history, people create novelty & discovery without the "incentive" of ownership, invalidates the "need" for patents to provide an "incentive" of exclusivity. But are they creating at an optimal rate? Without patents, would they still create nearly as much stuff? It's a fascinating question. My view is that it's all a bit of a messy compromise, and neat, clean answers like "abolish patents" are probably a bad idea. I'd be in favor of some major reforms, and severely limit them in some fields.
    - briantakita 12y ago
      We made lots of progress without the systems of capitalism and patents. I dare say that the progress before the systems of capitalism & patents was more sustainable (environmentally & humanely). Much of the paradigm of economic scarcity is a false. Economic scarcity is a tool to enforce social order so those on top can control all of the resources. Capitalism needs scarcity for the profit motive. Farmers can't make as much profit if everybody has enough to eat and can receive food in a decentralized manner. We can have abundance. Hunger does not need to exist. We already produce enough food. We already produce enough ideas & innovation. Humans naturally create. No coercive incentive is needed. > clean answers like "abolish patents" are probably a bad idea It's probably a good idea to decentralize power & control. Power corrupts after all.
stcredzero 12y ago
Imagine if the Chinese were able to patent the process... One of the big holes in our current system of patents is that they have inconsistent enforcement internationally. This is simultaneously a good and a bad thing.

Imagine if the Chinese were able to patent the process of mining and processing the rare metals. And bombarded everyone with frivolous lawsuits. Good thing these crazy scenarios don't happen.

davidw 12y ago

> patent the process of mining and processing the rare metals If they were to make big and non-obvious improvements that allow everyone to mine and/or process more efficiently, then that's exactly what patents are supposed to do: they get a temporary monopoly on those improvements in return for sharing them with the world. But I have the feeling you're just spouting off a bit :-)

thescrewdriver 12y ago
Since when did only non-obvious improvements get patented?
briantakita 12y ago
I suppose you don't agree with the phrase "standing on the shoulder of giants". The fact that, through history, people create novelty & discovery without the "incentive" of ownership, invalidates the "need" for patents to provide an "incentive" of exclusivity. Re: patents, those who own the capital also own the patents. It's simply a mechanism to control others by restricting who can use an idea originally developed by "standing on the shoulder of giants". So if you own lots of capital, patents allow you to control others. If you don't own lots of capital, patents are oppressive.
- davidw 12y ago
  > The fact that, through history, people create novelty & discovery without the "incentive" of ownership, invalidates the "need" for patents to provide an "incentive" of exclusivity. But are they creating at an optimal rate? Without patents, would they still create nearly as much stuff? It's a fascinating question. My view is that it's all a bit of a messy compromise, and neat, clean answers like "abolish patents" are probably a bad idea. I'd be in favor of some major reforms, and severely limit them in some fields.
  - briantakita 12y ago
    We made lots of progress without the systems of capitalism and patents. I dare say that the progress before the systems of capitalism & patents was more sustainable (environmentally & humanely). Much of the paradigm of economic scarcity is a false. Economic scarcity is a tool to enforce social order so those on top can control all of the resources. Capitalism needs scarcity for the profit motive. Farmers can't make as much profit if everybody has enough to eat and can receive food in a decentralized manner. We can have abundance. Hunger does not need to exist. We already produce enough food. We already produce enough ideas & innovation. Humans naturally create. No coercive incentive is needed. > clean answers like "abolish patents" are probably a bad idea It's probably a good idea to decentralize power & control. Power corrupts after all.

stcredzero 12y ago

Imagine if the Chinese were able to patent the process... One of the big holes in our current system of patents is that they have inconsistent enforcement internationally. This is simultaneously a good and a bad thing.