6 ms·

It is completely irrelevant how the world would be if everyone did X, since it will never happen. The only benefit of not using patents is a righteous feeling.

by is74 14y ago

It is completely irrelevant how the world would be if everyone did X, since it will never happen. The only benefit of not using patents is a righteous feeling. It would be much better if everyone who choose to not use patents would instead use patents to earn more money, and use this extra money to lobby their governments to change the laws. It will have a drastically higher ROI.

ricardobeat 14y ago
Ok, why don't we skip the next elections then? Just lobby for your candidate and let the government decide.
KirinDave 14y ago
> It is completely irrelevant how the world would be if everyone did X, since it will never happen. "And that, my boy, is why your fancy horseless carriage will never succeed."
jongraehl 14y ago
The concept of obtaining money wherever your comparative advantage lies (even if that has negative externalities), rather than working in a less efficient feel-good occupation (peace corp etc), and then doing more good with the money than you ever could have in the soup kitchen, is the acme of rationality. See Bill Gates.* * obviously in some cases the claims of charity don't measure up to the damage done making the money. I think Bill Gates happens to be winning, but that's not the point. (shame on whoever downvoted is74. It's fine if working in a soup kitchen makes you happier. You don't have to feel threatened by a suggestion that you should consider alternatives, if you're capable of making lots of money)
- KirinDave 14y ago
  I would agree it is rational, if most people who try to make a lot of money via said "negative externalities" succeed and then become philanthropists of note. Very few people succeed to the degree that Bill Gates has. Fewer still put their money to the good uses Bill and Melinda have been espousing. So while it is possible to end up with a positive outcome, these outcomes represent a minority. So no, it's not particularly rational. It sort of assumes you can guarantee things you have very little control over.
  - jongraehl 14y ago
    You don't have to guarantee anything in order to make the consequentialist-rational choice in the face of uncertainty. You just approximately weigh the expected outcomes. You can't seriously argue that the consequences of creating+controlling a software patent (while advocating against software patents) are always net negative. All you have is your "if we all did our part" Kantian argument, which I respect, but decline to follow.
    - KirinDave 14y ago
      > You can't seriously argue that the consequences of creating+controlling a software patent (while advocating against software patents) are always net negative I actually don't argue against "all software patents." Truly novel work should be patented. But Software patents should be explicitly enumerated, their definition of "obviousness" refined for the field, and their duration shorted substantially (5 years?). For example, the software and hardware that went into FingerWork's TouchStream keyboards (which Apple bought, btw) was excellent, novel work. They advanced the state of the art as they produced a product, and they deserved to be rewarded for that risk and innovation. The problem is not the existence of patents. The problem is the lack of a clear definition for software patents and the abuse this void is suffering. And I was specifically arguing against the idea that Bill Gates is an existence proof for abusing society for personal gain being justified by potential future good. Not only is that outcome rare, but Bill Gates has been demonized far more than his personal actions deserve.

by is74 14y ago

ricardobeat 14y ago

Ok, why don't we skip the next elections then? Just lobby for your candidate and let the government decide.

KirinDave 14y ago

> It is completely irrelevant how the world would be if everyone did X, since it will never happen. "And that, my boy, is why your fancy horseless carriage will never succeed."

jongraehl 14y ago

The concept of obtaining money wherever your comparative advantage lies (even if that has negative externalities), rather than working in a less efficient feel-good occupation (peace corp etc), and then doing more good with the money than you ever could have in the soup kitchen, is the acme of rationality. See Bill Gates.* * obviously in some cases the claims of charity don't measure up to the damage done making the money. I think Bill Gates happens to be winning, but that's not the point. (shame on whoever downvoted is74. It's fine if working in a soup kitchen makes you happier. You don't have to feel threatened by a suggestion that you should consider alternatives, if you're capable of making lots of money)

KirinDave 14y ago
I would agree it is rational, if most people who try to make a lot of money via said "negative externalities" succeed and then become philanthropists of note. Very few people succeed to the degree that Bill Gates has. Fewer still put their money to the good uses Bill and Melinda have been espousing. So while it is possible to end up with a positive outcome, these outcomes represent a minority. So no, it's not particularly rational. It sort of assumes you can guarantee things you have very little control over.
- jongraehl 14y ago
  You don't have to guarantee anything in order to make the consequentialist-rational choice in the face of uncertainty. You just approximately weigh the expected outcomes. You can't seriously argue that the consequences of creating+controlling a software patent (while advocating against software patents) are always net negative. All you have is your "if we all did our part" Kantian argument, which I respect, but decline to follow.
  - KirinDave 14y ago
    > You can't seriously argue that the consequences of creating+controlling a software patent (while advocating against software patents) are always net negative I actually don't argue against "all software patents." Truly novel work should be patented. But Software patents should be explicitly enumerated, their definition of "obviousness" refined for the field, and their duration shorted substantially (5 years?). For example, the software and hardware that went into FingerWork's TouchStream keyboards (which Apple bought, btw) was excellent, novel work. They advanced the state of the art as they produced a product, and they deserved to be rewarded for that risk and innovation. The problem is not the existence of patents. The problem is the lack of a clear definition for software patents and the abuse this void is suffering. And I was specifically arguing against the idea that Bill Gates is an existence proof for abusing society for personal gain being justified by potential future good. Not only is that outcome rare, but Bill Gates has been demonized far more than his personal actions deserve.