• @CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    211 month ago

    I invent something. Since there are no patents, my idea is put in the open. A big company sees my idea and uses its much bigger budget to advertise and out sell me, putting me out of business. How’s that not abusive?

    Patents prevent theft. Patents on medicine based on publicly funded research is stupid. I could be persuaded that it’s theft in that particular instance. But in general, no patents are not theft.

    • Veraxus
      link
      fedilink
      8
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That almost made sense in the age of the cotton gin. It does not any more. All patents are abuse. Always. Every time.

      Case in point: you “invent” something (which is guaranteed to be something - or a combination of somethings - that are already extant, btw)… a corporation…

      1. Already has a similar patent and crushes you with the sheer legal corruption and power that comes with ostentatious wealth.

      2. Files the patent before or via other loophole supersedes your filing… and THEN crushes you with sheer legal corruption and power that comes with ostentatious wealth.

      Either way, they win. And even if you win, chances are you’ve merely stolen some concept that should always have been public domain, anyway.

      You see this as a way to fight against wealthy corporations, but no matter how you swing it, it’s theft. It’s plain old theft from society and the public… and the bigger and wealthier you are, the more you can steal. Just because “little guys” can sometimes engage in such legally-protected theft doesn’t make it any less theft.

        • Veraxus
          link
          fedilink
          11 month ago

          What a profound, meaningful, and thought-provoking response. You sure got me!

          • @denshirenji@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            31 month ago

            I agree that by and large most patent law is rigged in favor of corporations. All I’m saying is that things are always more complex than simple black and white. I chose a simple response because I believe that you have already made up your mind and it would be a very difficult and nigh impossible conversation. I do like the energy that you put into looking out for people though and that should be commended.

        • Veraxus
          link
          fedilink
          11 month ago

          We collected all the clues and logged them as evidence. They are evidence now. You should look at them some time instead of burying your head in the sand and imagining your own.

      • DaDragon
        link
        fedilink
        31 month ago

        How would funding work, then? If everything I do is available to the public with no protections on my end, then I can’t guarantee that I (the inventor) will ever be able to extract any value from some thing that I put a lot of time and effort into developing. Considering we live in a capitalist society, there needs to be a way to reimburse inventors.

        As the person above me pointed out, how do you prevent a large company on capitalising on ideas that a small inventor has?

        • Veraxus
          link
          fedilink
          11 month ago

          Considering we live in a capitalist society, there needs to be a way to reimburse inventors.

          As the person above me pointed out, how do you prevent a large company on capitalising on ideas that a small inventor has?

          This is your answer. The problem is Capitalism and enabling/perpetuating tools of Capitalist abuse is no solution at all. Under our current system, the thing you ask “how do we prevent” is currently happening. it does not provide protection for “small inventors” - it provides a way for big companies to churn put patents by the hundreds/thousands/millions.

      • @Hackworth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 month ago

        IP isn’t going to withstand generative AI, at least not in a recognizable form. I don’t know what that means for the market.