this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
651 points (96.7% liked)
Technology
69298 readers
3879 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It'll affect it, but it won't stop it. This is a good question to bring up though.
I design medical devices. IP is incredibly important in this process to protect our R&D investment in the current system. If IP didn't exist, we'd protect that through other means like obfuscation of function.
Also if IP didn't exist, I could design devices that are so much better at healing people. So much of what I do is restricted because someone else has 30 years left on what they patented.
R&D is expensive. Just because you see what someone else did, doesn't mean you can easily replicate it.
In short: if your goal is pure profit, yeah removing IP probably hurts this a little. If your goal is producing the best product, then get rid of it.
I think the best solution would be a much shorter exclusionary period for patents.
Obfuscating how things work and trade secrets mean some knowledge is never shared. The ideal behind the patent system is that information is made public but protected for a limited time. The system has strayed from the ideal, but there is still a need for it.
Patents in the US and most countries expire 20 years after filing or 17 years after issuing. It's not 30 years.
Cory Doctorow has made a pretty convincing argument that in your real specifically, all designs should be open source. That way, if a company goes bankrupt or simply stops supporting a device, like (say) an implant that allows them to see, or a pacemaker, or whatever, they can pursue repairs without the help of the OEM.
Open source is effectively no different than public domain in this circumstance. You don't have less rights
Capitalism stifles innovation
If they didn't patent it, that technology never would have existed in the first place for you to steal from.
100% agreed on that account.
"A little"? If there's no IP you just pay a janitor or an employee a million bucks to send you all the information and documentation and you manufacture the product yourself and undercut the company actually engineering the product so they can never be profitable.
Like, this all seems very obvious to me...
Oh gee, a wildly incorrect assumption
Oh gee, a rational contradiction supported with evidence.
People made stuff before patents existed. In many cases there were certain people and groups that were sought out because they simply did things better than others who made the same things.
Knowing how someone else makes something doesn't mean you can make it as well as the other person. Making quality goods is the same as cooking meals, the people and techniques are far more important than the designs.
That was fine before mass production made perfect copies possible on an industrial scale.
You don't need the person when you can copy the object and produce it at volume and scale because you already own the factories.
Mass production copies are far from perfect. Like the dollar store version of anything is shit tier even if it looks the same. I'm not talking snobby high end or anything, just well made vs trash tier.
Hell, most of the goods we buy are made by a factory contracted with the person who designed and distributes the materials. That was true before we moved manufacturing overseas too. Cars were one of the few factories that were owned and operated by the companies that design and distribute the goods.
Mass production started long before cars. The industrial revolution began in the 17th century. Interchangeable parts was invented by Eli Whitney. He showed a flint lock that could be assembled by anyone, instead of a skilled metal worker that needed to customize each part so they fit together perfectly.
https://study.com/learn/lesson/eli-whitney-interchangeable-parts-overview-history-importance.html#%3A%7E%3Atext=While+historians+do+not+credit%2Cparts+replaced+by+unskilled+workers.
Outside of art, machine made parts are far more perfect than hand crafted.
People also didn't make stuff before patents existed. That's why they exist.
Not necessarily, but often you can. You also don't have to, you just have to make it cheaper, which you can because you are benefitting from someone else's investment.
What didn't they make?
How many restaurants make fries? How many companies make a drink called cola? Are they all identical?
Why do they keep making making those prodicts when they aren't covered by patents?
I don't know. They didn't make them.
So you are assuming they didn't make them for reasons that didn't exist at the time.
Ok.
No. I'm assuming that they didn't make them based on simple and rational thought processes that I've already outlined several times.
Does the fact that the richest billionaires in the world all want to get rid of them not concern you at all?
I assume that the way that Dorsey and Musk want to 'get rid of them' means for everyone else and will be terrible.
But that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that before patents and copyright people made all kinds of things and had zero reason to not make something just because someone else cpuld too. That is a made up theory of yours that has no basis in reality.
What does that mean? Who is everyone else? You think they only want IP for themselves? No, they don't want new companies to be able to innovate. Because then they could steal their ideas and apply their wealth to them to make a superior product. Thus no one would be able to compete with them. Pretty rational idea, don't you think?
FTFY. Please do not intentionally misrepresent my statements.
The fact we're not all still using oldawan industry proves you false
...no? It doesn't.