• nonentity@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

    • sniggleboots@europe.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.