7 ms·

The biggest concern I see with eliminating IP is that it effectively eliminates an incentive for innovation. That doesn't mean innovation halts completely, but

The biggest concern I see with eliminating IP is that it effectively eliminates an incentive for innovation. That doesn't mean innovation halts completely, but if the system of compensation does not change, it can be reasonably expected that rates of innovation adjust according to the incentives available for innovators. What I would prefer is a discounted lump sum paid out to IP owners, at the time of patent filing/copyright. For instance, instead of having to legally defend a medical patent for 20 years and overcharge hospitals/distributors during that time, receive a discounted cash flow equal to the approximate amount of value that would be forgone by pricing the innovation at competitive prices. Of course this system isn't foolproof, and would be subject to tremendous "gaming" from patent holders and regulators, but innovators could reap the rewards of their innovative research without having to deal with pricing their products out of reach for some individuals who can't afford the price. Again, it isn't foolproof. But there exists a "most efficient" means of balancing the risk/reward of innovation that lies somewhere between "IP rights should be forever" and "No IP at all."

TaylorAlexander 9y ago
I hear this constantly but it doesn't ring true to me. Look at the 3D printer inventors from the 1980's who rested on their laurels selling $30,000 3D printers until their patents expired and the open source community started producing them for under $1000. Ten years after the patents expired, you can get a 3D printer for $199 that genuinely rivals the quality of a $30,000 printer just 10 years ago. There are all manner of incentives for innovation and profit is only one. But locking down ideas in this way prevents others from improving on ideas, and incentivizes one-time innovators to focus on legal battles rather than continued development.
- Cyph0n 9y ago
  But would the innovation that led to the creation of 3D printers have taken place if patent law didn't exist? And since the open source movement is based entirely on those patents (as I understand), would cheap 3D printers exist if the 1980s tech was never developed? I think these are the questions you should be thinking about when arguing against IP protection laws. Edit: One thing you failed to mention is that the technology available after the patents expired was orders of magnitude more advanced than what was available in the 1980s. For this reason, it's simply a no-brainer that the cost went from $30k down to $1k. Then there's the whole "maker" movement that happened to coincide with the development of 3D printers which meant that 3D printers had a decently sized potential market. Go back 5-10 years and people didn't even know what the hell a 3D printer was! So it's only natural that the original inventors didn't invest more in optimizing the design and making it cheaper.
  - csydas 9y ago
    Well you don't even need to look just at commercially available products - just look at the FOSS landscape for what gets produced when there is no financial incentive or IP law to protect the material - certainly we would be in a much different place technology wise if we didn't have FOSS as the backbone for a grand majority of technology that exist on the market today, and all of that FOSS was created without the financial incentive or the IP law to protect it. The existing IP structure can be a useful tool and motivator for people, but it also adds in an extra requirement to all software it touches, whether the designers and coders are conscious of it or not - suddenly, there is a requirement that it make profit on top of what it actually is supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with making money - I'm not here to make a Stallmanistic rant about F/OSS. But this type of structure isn't necessary for great leaps in technology. In the past it was useful because that's how access to the development funds were locked up - you had to play under someone else's banner and their rules to bring you idea to the forefront. Software was different because you didn't need a factory to produce it, and while you still need the factory, you don't need any one particular factory anymore to do the production. Innovation can and does happen just fine without patent laws or financial incentive.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      It's a great point. I'll add that even big companies and government that push for patents use tons of FOSS software because it's better for them. Says a lot, eh? ;)
      - Scea91 9y ago
        As long as they are not violating the licenses I see no problem with that.
        nickpsecurity 9y ago
        It depends on your moral system. Lets say it's Mirosoft pushing a server OS, Windows, saying it's better than UNIX's in every way. Definately worth the money. Then we find their Hotmail service runs on FreeBSD for better reliability & performance. I'd say what they tell customers about Windows Server was fraudulent in that situation and they need to get off FreeBSD if they really believe what they preach. Something along these lines for companies pushing proprietary software and patent suits as good for innovation/productivity while using non-patented FOSS for own innovative or productive projects. It's dishonest. Although, I recall the Hotmail incident actually happening and they had to switch over lol. Same when people found out Microsoft ran on one AS/400.

TaylorAlexander 9y ago

I hear this constantly but it doesn't ring true to me. Look at the 3D printer inventors from the 1980's who rested on their laurels selling $30,000 3D printers until their patents expired and the open source community started producing them for under $1000. Ten years after the patents expired, you can get a 3D printer for $199 that genuinely rivals the quality of a $30,000 printer just 10 years ago. There are all manner of incentives for innovation and profit is only one. But locking down ideas in this way prevents others from improving on ideas, and incentivizes one-time innovators to focus on legal battles rather than continued development.

Cyph0n 9y ago
But would the innovation that led to the creation of 3D printers have taken place if patent law didn't exist? And since the open source movement is based entirely on those patents (as I understand), would cheap 3D printers exist if the 1980s tech was never developed? I think these are the questions you should be thinking about when arguing against IP protection laws. Edit: One thing you failed to mention is that the technology available after the patents expired was orders of magnitude more advanced than what was available in the 1980s. For this reason, it's simply a no-brainer that the cost went from $30k down to $1k. Then there's the whole "maker" movement that happened to coincide with the development of 3D printers which meant that 3D printers had a decently sized potential market. Go back 5-10 years and people didn't even know what the hell a 3D printer was! So it's only natural that the original inventors didn't invest more in optimizing the design and making it cheaper.
- csydas 9y ago
  Well you don't even need to look just at commercially available products - just look at the FOSS landscape for what gets produced when there is no financial incentive or IP law to protect the material - certainly we would be in a much different place technology wise if we didn't have FOSS as the backbone for a grand majority of technology that exist on the market today, and all of that FOSS was created without the financial incentive or the IP law to protect it. The existing IP structure can be a useful tool and motivator for people, but it also adds in an extra requirement to all software it touches, whether the designers and coders are conscious of it or not - suddenly, there is a requirement that it make profit on top of what it actually is supposed to do. There's nothing wrong with making money - I'm not here to make a Stallmanistic rant about F/OSS. But this type of structure isn't necessary for great leaps in technology. In the past it was useful because that's how access to the development funds were locked up - you had to play under someone else's banner and their rules to bring you idea to the forefront. Software was different because you didn't need a factory to produce it, and while you still need the factory, you don't need any one particular factory anymore to do the production. Innovation can and does happen just fine without patent laws or financial incentive.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    It's a great point. I'll add that even big companies and government that push for patents use tons of FOSS software because it's better for them. Says a lot, eh? ;)
    - Scea91 9y ago
      As long as they are not violating the licenses I see no problem with that.
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        It depends on your moral system. Lets say it's Mirosoft pushing a server OS, Windows, saying it's better than UNIX's in every way. Definately worth the money. Then we find their Hotmail service runs on FreeBSD for better reliability & performance. I'd say what they tell customers about Windows Server was fraudulent in that situation and they need to get off FreeBSD if they really believe what they preach. Something along these lines for companies pushing proprietary software and patent suits as good for innovation/productivity while using non-patented FOSS for own innovative or productive projects. It's dishonest. Although, I recall the Hotmail incident actually happening and they had to switch over lol. Same when people found out Microsoft ran on one AS/400.