11–20 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems quite clear that the author would encourage that and be glad of it. There's a CC0 license at the bottom.
Apparently the license the author chose requires attribution. I am assuming that their stance against IP rights means that they are willing to forego attribution.
medicine have been produced for ages without IP law Er... I think there's a fairly sizable difference between modern medicine, in which we can develop an effective cure for a pandemic within a year of the pandemic starting, and historical medicine in which the Black Death ravaged countries for years and was never cured, only adapted to after countless lives were lost. I don't think the modern medical industry would w…
https://www.salon.com/2021/01/24/the-hero-biochemist-who-pio...
and now that it's finished it's immediately applicable to all kinds of diseases that currently and historically have generated massive amounts of damage but were also not profitable to prevent. including but not limited to hiv, malaria, and a number of cancers
https://academictimes.com/first-vaccine-to-fully-immunize-ag...
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/research/biontech-ceo-turns-co...
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6525/145
https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/11/moderna-is-developing-thre...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-scientist-mrna-cance...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32716975/
https://phys.org/news/2021-02-mrna-vaccine-cancer-immunother...
i would suggest you've simply picked a bad example to make your point but there are quite a lot of bad examples.
medicine is invented because humans don't like to suffer, or see others suffer. property and profit don't have much to do with that beyond being the current framework to get things manufactured and keep researchers from becoming destitute. and they don't seem to be serving that function well.
The argument for patents is simple and clear: the alternative is broader use of trade secrets. In a patent regime, a company can (indeed must) publish their process, in exchange for a temporary monopoly on exploiting it commercially. In return, everyone else can learn it, implement it for research, and improve it, at which point the patent no longer applies. Copyright was also compelling in the technological milieu i…
- the source code can be kept a trade secret and enjoy copyright protection at the same time
- the object code used to be unable to be hidden (+), but it derived copyright from being a derived work (via compilation) of the source
- the technology can be covered by patents. Since the object code is incomprehensible, there is no assurance that competitors will be able to figure out which patents it implements, so they become like legal landmines deterring innovation.
(+) With the advent of microservices, often no more.
The argument for patents is simple and clear: the alternative is broader use of trade secrets. In a patent regime, a company can (indeed must) publish their process, in exchange for a temporary monopoly on exploiting it commercially. In return, everyone else can learn it, implement it for research, and improve it, at which point the patent no longer applies. Copyright was also compelling in the technological milieu i…
The future of intellectual property though, seems quite in doubt. I'll not re-elaborate the points made in the original article, and instead I'll state what I believe the future will actually look like:
The future of getting paid is going to be in "payment for genesis" not "payment for control". This means a return to patronage and a return to paying for things which can only ever be inherently temporary, such as a live performance of music.
In the long-long term, as we're going to see piracy rise once more in the face of ever-fractured streaming services we'll probably see the world of "payment for control" be further and further cannibalized, eventually seeing a greater and greater shift by artists (across most all media) towards funding sources that (right now) look like Patreon and its ilk. We're already seeing these changes, and I think the future will only see these accelerate.
With a headline like that, we can just close up shop and move on, no thinking needed! All joking aside, how did something like that make it to the front page?
Says who, you? Treating that as some kind of axiom makes everything else a terrible argument
The argument for patents is simple and clear: the alternative is broader use of trade secrets. In a patent regime, a company can (indeed must) publish their process, in exchange for a temporary monopoly on exploiting it commercially. In return, everyone else can learn it, implement it for research, and improve it, at which point the patent no longer applies. Copyright was also compelling in the technological milieu i…
Yet it falls into the neat, plausible and wrong category of ideas. In reality that isn't what happens, and it is based upon the assumption that ideas are unique and only occur once, when we know that ideas are ten a penny, and it is implementations in practice that we are short of - something that is exacerbated when you have to negotiate the patent troll arena.
Trade secrets are not a threat to the advancement of society because they will be rediscovered. Stopping implementations is a threat because that's actually what we want to have cheaper goods and services - which advances society.
The X causes Y arguments behind intellectual property laws are classic truth by repeated assertion.
With a headline like that, we can just close up shop and move on, no thinking needed! All joking aside, how did something like that make it to the front page?