5 ms·
>This is not broad-strokes true. It absolutely is, though. Innovation is inherently hampered when someone owns the right to the use of a technology.
by quercetumMons 6y ago
>This is not broad-strokes true.
It absolutely is, though. Innovation is inherently hampered when someone owns the right to the use of a technology.
- pzone 6y agoInnovation is also hampered when inventors are not sufficiently compensated for the broad social value they create with a new invention. When anyone is allowed to copy a new invention instantly, there is not enough incentive to innovate. A good patent system must strike a balance between these two forces.
- quercetumMons 6y ago>inventors are not sufficiently compensated Patents do little to nothing in this regard.
- tsujp 6y agoIncorrect. Patents quite literally to provide the developer of a new technology a legal monopoly for some time so they can (maybe) recoup their costs as an incentivisation mechanism to encourage innovation.
- brlewis 6y agos/literally/theoretically/ When I'm looking to spend money to solve a problem, I search for a product or service to buy. I never, ever, ever search for a patent to license, because that's stepping into a legal minefield. Show me a field where people looking to spend money to solve a problem search the patent database for solutions, and I'll believe there's a field where patents are a good thing.
- tsujp 6y agoI already explained why that's not the case. Not everyone has the capacity to work charitably, as much as that would make for a better world, and resorting to "this is bad let's completely get rid of it" completely ignores the intermediate state required to transition to that utopia.