Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
Patents give monopoly rights on inventions. Monopolies are bad.
The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
11–20 of 145 posts
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#12[deleted]
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#13It's interesting to note Lexmark tried to (ab)use other kinds of so-called "intelectual property" laws earlier: the copyright law and DMCA. When they failed, they decided to use patents instead. And all this for what purpose? To prevent people from using cartridges manufactured by other companies, i.e. blocking competition and acting against free market and user rights. If this isn't abuse, I don't know what it is. I…
They built their model around expensive ink and cheap printers. Of course they will try to protect that. And yes, it is abuse.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#14Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
Well we wouldn't be where we are today without them, those parents!
I jest.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#15The title is typical EFF bluster. This case is about a relatively narrow question on patent exhaustion, not a referendum on patents in general.
while this may be, when it comes to the EFF I give them some latitude. I think they're fighting the good fight in general and if they get more exposure then I'm ok with that.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#16Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
Patents are actually proven harmful in certain domain, including software. More than half of the R&D costs are now patent legal bullshit related & stuff, which is insane.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#17Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents.
R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an incentive for more innovation.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#18Parents are also a big part of why we have anything at all.
This view is often taken, especially historically, that complicated/expensive things to figure out wouldn't exist without such protection.
The problem with this line of thought, which can and often-has been true in specific instances... is that protection outcome will always need to be the case, and always remain the case, and that the funder-of-creators get to decide that.
Often something complicated/expensive to think about and solve for one group, is easy and obvious to others. Especially over time and with other out-of-bound advances applied.
Comedic routines would still exist for example, if people repeated other people's jokes/sets. Granted that would be copyright in that case... but the logic applies there also, and we have the same challenge and arguments, by people who insist there would not be nice things without the protection to justify the cost of the outcome generation method.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#19Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents. R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an inc…
You are correct, for R&D that takes years, patents are stimulating innovation.
For ideas that take a week to "invent", patents are probably stifling innovation instead of promoting it.
Most software patents (if not all) fall into the 2nd category. That's why in Europe we don't have software patents, and rightly so.
So it indeed depends on whether you are able to recover your R&D costs after going to market.
Re: The US Supreme Court is hearing a case about patent law’s “exhaustion doctrine”
#20Without the guarantee of a patented marked up drug, would drug companies waste the same amount of money that they currently do on R&D? I'm of the opinion that we would see a major slow down in drug innovation without patents. R&D is very wasteful and expensive. Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an inc…
> Patents prevent competition for a short period of time to help the business recoup losses from failed experiments and to deliver profits which serve as an incentive for more innovation.
Is 20 years a short period of time? It seems like we'd get most of the benefits with fewer drawbacks by just shortening the time patents are granted for.