4 ms·

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 "

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.

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.