This comment shows a complete misunderstanding of patent practice. Patents exist not for inventors, but for companies. Destin, from Smarter Every Day, has a recent video trying to make a grill scrubber in which he talks with many people about how Amazon for example constantly avoids patent claims from small inventors.
Humanity progressed from hunter-gatherers to the industrial revolution without the need for a judge to determine whether I can arrange atoms in a given way or not without giving a canon to someone else who decided to arrange atoms like that before me.
Without corporations there isn’t a need for intellectual property. Public research, i.e. most research, is conducted without intellectual property, and most scientists dedicate their live to science not because they think they can get rich by selling one product, but because they get a decent wage and position for doing so, intellectual stimulus, and social recognition. Research and invention don’t necessitate intellectual property, only private companies do.
Oh boy here we go. What is a corporation? What does it mean for corporations to not exist? How exactly does that even work in practice?
Yes creative scientist invent things spontaneously without expectation of reward. But no scientist will contribute as much as a well funded and motivated team with a clear goal. And I’m sure all the scientists love it when you tell them they won’t be credited for their work and literally anyone will be able to take their idea and do whatever they want with it, that’ll do so much to help foster humanity’s innate desire to learn and be creative.
And it’s about coercing people who won’t act in good faith with the system into doing so. Most people would keep a secret to make money especially if their livelihood depended on it. Why force creatives to choose between sharing their works and profiting from them?
Private companies don’t need intellectual property. A corporation will steal your creation and outcompete you in profiting from it if given the opportunity. Intellectual property laws are what stop them from doing so. Again, the system has been eroded and misused by companies but at its core it protects workers and their labour.
I’m sure all the scientists love it when you tell them they won’t be credited for their work and literally anyone will be able to take their idea and do whatever they want with it, that’ll do so much to help foster humanity’s innate desire to learn and be creative
Literally yes. Why do you think every fucking scientist loves sci-hub and is against Elsevier, and even submits their papers to arxiv for anyone to read for free? You clearly have no experience in the field and are talking out of your arse
What does it mean for corporations to not exist?
Through the existence of exclusively public institutions, whether cooperative or government-owned, which don’t work in direct competition but either in cooperation or in emulated competition (I.e. a contest instead of a struggle to drive each other off business).
And it’s about coercing people who won’t act in good faith with the system into doing so
This literally doesn’t happen in public research.
Most people would keep a secret to make money especially if their livelihood depended on it
In public research it works backwards. The more you publish (i.e. make available to the public), the more you earn. You really don’t seem to understand the concept of public research.
A corporation will steal your creation and outcompete you in profiting from it if given the opportunity.
Great, so make knowledge accessible to everyone and abolish private corporations.
Yeah some of what I’ve said doesn’t portray my arguments well. In trying to explain that IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate. Virtually every country has an IP law. IP law doesn’t make it so people won’t share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded.
IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate
How is it not a point of debate? I’m giving you arguments as to why it’s a very good point of debate and you don’t seem to be able to respond to them.
Virtually every country has an IP law
Virtually every country also has homeless people and I disagree with that, that’s just an argument from majority, kinda useless to me.
IP law doesn’t make it so people won’t share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded
I already explained how there are already existing mechanisms without IP pushing for the rewarding of intellectual production, such as the “publish-or-perish” system in public research. You may very well have arguments against it, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t need IP as a mechanism to reward people who engage innovation/creative/research processes. Public openings at institutions (whether a national orchestra, a research institute or a cinema academy with subsidised production), contests and grants… IP is not the only method for material rewarding of intellectual creation, which is what you’re trying to argue.
This comment shows a complete misunderstanding of patent practice. Patents exist not for inventors, but for companies. Destin, from Smarter Every Day, has a recent video trying to make a grill scrubber in which he talks with many people about how Amazon for example constantly avoids patent claims from small inventors.
Humanity progressed from hunter-gatherers to the industrial revolution without the need for a judge to determine whether I can arrange atoms in a given way or not without giving a canon to someone else who decided to arrange atoms like that before me.
Patents are available to all. It protects the individual as well as the corporation.
The problem is with corporations pushing up against weak public institutions and finding no resistance not those public institutions dummy.
Without corporations there isn’t a need for intellectual property. Public research, i.e. most research, is conducted without intellectual property, and most scientists dedicate their live to science not because they think they can get rich by selling one product, but because they get a decent wage and position for doing so, intellectual stimulus, and social recognition. Research and invention don’t necessitate intellectual property, only private companies do.
Oh boy here we go. What is a corporation? What does it mean for corporations to not exist? How exactly does that even work in practice?
Yes creative scientist invent things spontaneously without expectation of reward. But no scientist will contribute as much as a well funded and motivated team with a clear goal. And I’m sure all the scientists love it when you tell them they won’t be credited for their work and literally anyone will be able to take their idea and do whatever they want with it, that’ll do so much to help foster humanity’s innate desire to learn and be creative.
And it’s about coercing people who won’t act in good faith with the system into doing so. Most people would keep a secret to make money especially if their livelihood depended on it. Why force creatives to choose between sharing their works and profiting from them?
Private companies don’t need intellectual property. A corporation will steal your creation and outcompete you in profiting from it if given the opportunity. Intellectual property laws are what stop them from doing so. Again, the system has been eroded and misused by companies but at its core it protects workers and their labour.
Literally yes. Why do you think every fucking scientist loves sci-hub and is against Elsevier, and even submits their papers to arxiv for anyone to read for free? You clearly have no experience in the field and are talking out of your arse
Through the existence of exclusively public institutions, whether cooperative or government-owned, which don’t work in direct competition but either in cooperation or in emulated competition (I.e. a contest instead of a struggle to drive each other off business).
This literally doesn’t happen in public research.
In public research it works backwards. The more you publish (i.e. make available to the public), the more you earn. You really don’t seem to understand the concept of public research.
Great, so make knowledge accessible to everyone and abolish private corporations.
Yeah some of what I’ve said doesn’t portray my arguments well. In trying to explain that IP law is a process that protects creatives and without it creative endeavours would be eroded. This is not a point of debate. Virtually every country has an IP law. IP law doesn’t make it so people won’t share their ideas, it makes it so people who do are rewarded.
How is it not a point of debate? I’m giving you arguments as to why it’s a very good point of debate and you don’t seem to be able to respond to them.
Virtually every country also has homeless people and I disagree with that, that’s just an argument from majority, kinda useless to me.
I already explained how there are already existing mechanisms without IP pushing for the rewarding of intellectual production, such as the “publish-or-perish” system in public research. You may very well have arguments against it, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t need IP as a mechanism to reward people who engage innovation/creative/research processes. Public openings at institutions (whether a national orchestra, a research institute or a cinema academy with subsidised production), contests and grants… IP is not the only method for material rewarding of intellectual creation, which is what you’re trying to argue.
Because everyone does it for that exact reason
Everyone does it because every country works through the capitalist mode of production, not because it’s a necessity of production.
How about you answer to the rest of my comment?