Not at all. Proof is in recent history. How long took to steal the multi touch from iPhone without paying a single patent?
Once is out, is everyones game. If the market demand it enough.
You can be the first one, and that should pay you enough. If you want more, or think it doesn’t worth your time, let room for somebody else.
New tech doesn’t need patents. Drugs are another example. The blank brand drugs sell less than Bayern in my country and IT’S THE SAME DRUG. But people trust brands. So you are still in business even years after the patent expires.
You don’t need this laws to preserve new tech from coming out, companys want the markets only for themselves as long as they can. That’s it.
If you could copy a drug from day one, health would be a better business for everyone except a few, and those few will only make a little less money. They won’t go bankrupt.
No matter how anti-capitalism you are, I hope you can see how broken the argument being made here is. The absolute reality is that, without protections, things like pharmaceuticals would never exist at the scale that we enjoy them.
Of course examples of things that require years of research would exist. However, there would be far fewer of them than there is today.
Patents and copyrights have become corrupted. They need reform. We have to remember though that when they were created, it was to improve the world that existed ( the world that this commenter thinks would be better ).
Patents and copyrights were not invented because making companies richer was a goal. They were invented to better society. They were created with the recognition that, if we wanted companies to invest in innovation, and if we wanted individuals to commit to a long, intensive creative process, that they needed protection. The downside of capitalism at the time was that evil corporations and unscrupulous entrepreneurs could steal your hard work. Patents and copyrights were created to right that wrong and to promote a culture of creativity, invention, and innovation. And it worked wonderfully. We all benefit.
Now, things have of course been corrupted. The idea of “intellectual property” has emerged and we get nonsense like calling copyright violations “piracy”. The protections have been extended far. The penalties have become too great. The idea of public benefit has taken a backseat to profit protection. All this is bad. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is not the answer.
Not at all. Proof is in recent history. How long took to steal the multi touch from iPhone without paying a single patent? Once is out, is everyones game. If the market demand it enough.
You can be the first one, and that should pay you enough. If you want more, or think it doesn’t worth your time, let room for somebody else.
New tech doesn’t need patents. Drugs are another example. The blank brand drugs sell less than Bayern in my country and IT’S THE SAME DRUG. But people trust brands. So you are still in business even years after the patent expires. You don’t need this laws to preserve new tech from coming out, companys want the markets only for themselves as long as they can. That’s it.
If you could copy a drug from day one, health would be a better business for everyone except a few, and those few will only make a little less money. They won’t go bankrupt.
They would go bankrupt.
No matter how anti-capitalism you are, I hope you can see how broken the argument being made here is. The absolute reality is that, without protections, things like pharmaceuticals would never exist at the scale that we enjoy them.
Of course examples of things that require years of research would exist. However, there would be far fewer of them than there is today.
Patents and copyrights have become corrupted. They need reform. We have to remember though that when they were created, it was to improve the world that existed ( the world that this commenter thinks would be better ).
Patents and copyrights were not invented because making companies richer was a goal. They were invented to better society. They were created with the recognition that, if we wanted companies to invest in innovation, and if we wanted individuals to commit to a long, intensive creative process, that they needed protection. The downside of capitalism at the time was that evil corporations and unscrupulous entrepreneurs could steal your hard work. Patents and copyrights were created to right that wrong and to promote a culture of creativity, invention, and innovation. And it worked wonderfully. We all benefit.
Now, things have of course been corrupted. The idea of “intellectual property” has emerged and we get nonsense like calling copyright violations “piracy”. The protections have been extended far. The penalties have become too great. The idea of public benefit has taken a backseat to profit protection. All this is bad. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is not the answer.