4 ms·

The fact that we managed to get to the point where patents were legislated, while developing all of the necessary technology in the process, without patents pro

by Produce 15y ago

The fact that we managed to get to the point where patents were legislated, while developing all of the necessary technology in the process, without patents proves that patents are not required for progress to occur.

mmorris 15y ago
While it is certainly true that patents are not required for progress to occur, I don't believe anyone is arguing that. The question is whether more progress occurs under the current patent system than would without it (or under an altered system). Are inventors more likely to be properly rewarded for their inventions, thereby motivating them to invent? And does the value of this motivated invention outweigh the value of allowing everyone the ability to freely build on others' inventions? It is certainly a tricky question to answer, but you can look at the problems faced by countries that don't have strong patent enforcement to get an idea of what would happen if we scrapped the system entirely. It does seem to me that the situation has gotten out of hand, with completely obvious inventions (especially in the software field) being granted patents, but that doesn't mean that doing away with the entire system is the answer - which your argument here seems to imply.
- Produce 15y ago
  The more important question we should be asking is if we really think that sacrificing freedom in the name of efficiency is a good idea. Freedom is equated with happiness, efficiency is equated with a lot of stuff. Have our mountains of stuff managed to solve world hunger? End wars? Do they make us happier? I think that it makes sense to increase efficiency up to a certain point, after which it has negative effects. That point is bringing people out of poverty, since studies have found that those are the only conditions under which money/stuff increase happiness.

4 ms·

The fact that we managed to get to the point where patents were legislated, while developing all of the necessary technology in the process, without patents pro

by Produce 15y ago

mmorris 15y ago
While it is certainly true that patents are not required for progress to occur, I don't believe anyone is arguing that. The question is whether more progress occurs under the current patent system than would without it (or under an altered system). Are inventors more likely to be properly rewarded for their inventions, thereby motivating them to invent? And does the value of this motivated invention outweigh the value of allowing everyone the ability to freely build on others' inventions? It is certainly a tricky question to answer, but you can look at the problems faced by countries that don't have strong patent enforcement to get an idea of what would happen if we scrapped the system entirely. It does seem to me that the situation has gotten out of hand, with completely obvious inventions (especially in the software field) being granted patents, but that doesn't mean that doing away with the entire system is the answer - which your argument here seems to imply.
- Produce 15y ago
  The more important question we should be asking is if we really think that sacrificing freedom in the name of efficiency is a good idea. Freedom is equated with happiness, efficiency is equated with a lot of stuff. Have our mountains of stuff managed to solve world hunger? End wars? Do they make us happier? I think that it makes sense to increase efficiency up to a certain point, after which it has negative effects. That point is bringing people out of poverty, since studies have found that those are the only conditions under which money/stuff increase happiness.