The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.
Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.
I can see the purpose when done correctly but that would mean maybe a 3-5 year protection to give you a headstart on the competition not 20+ years of monopoly and stagnation.
The notion that ideas need protection from competition is foundationally caustic. The current regime incentivises locking them behind exclusionary and extractive mechanics as if they’re finite, when they’re intrinsically the opposite.
I can see how ‘IP’ can appear appealing, if not justifiable, but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.
I feel like I realized something profound when I was replying to your message initially. I was going to say something that I still find somewhat reasonable: if you create or develop or invent something useful or revolutionary, surely people shouldn’t be allowed to copy it for free? You did all the work
But then I realized that’s pretty close to poor people voting against taxing m/billionaires more. I’m not a millionaire, and I’m not developing any revolutionary tech either
The problem patents were solving was an inventor creating something and having it completely taken over by a well funded company leaving said inventor penniless. They created a new problem, though, when the well funded companies realized they could just buy all the patents and force everyone else to pay them while holding those ideas hostage.
The entire notion of ‘Intellectual Property’ is a cancer on society.
Information and ideas intrinsically accrue value the more they’re known and used, and the incentives provided around their collation and attribution should embody that, not punish them with imaginary locks that provide ownership.
I can see the purpose when done correctly but that would mean maybe a 3-5 year protection to give you a headstart on the competition not 20+ years of monopoly and stagnation.
The notion that ideas need protection from competition is foundationally caustic. The current regime incentivises locking them behind exclusionary and extractive mechanics as if they’re finite, when they’re intrinsically the opposite.
I can see how ‘IP’ can appear appealing, if not justifiable, but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.
I feel like I realized something profound when I was replying to your message initially. I was going to say something that I still find somewhat reasonable: if you create or develop or invent something useful or revolutionary, surely people shouldn’t be allowed to copy it for free? You did all the work
But then I realized that’s pretty close to poor people voting against taxing m/billionaires more. I’m not a millionaire, and I’m not developing any revolutionary tech either
The problem patents were solving was an inventor creating something and having it completely taken over by a well funded company leaving said inventor penniless. They created a new problem, though, when the well funded companies realized they could just buy all the patents and force everyone else to pay them while holding those ideas hostage.