Re:Dasung just released a 25 inch eInk monitor
by quercetumMons on Saturday December 26, 2020 @03:30AM
(#25542159)
>This is not broad-strokes true.
It absolutely is, though. Innovation is inherently hampered when someone owns the right to the use of a technology.
Re:Dasung just released a 25 inch eInk monitor
by pzone on Saturday December 26, 2020 @03:41AM
(#25542194)
Innovation is also hampered when inventors are not sufficiently compensated for the broad social value they create with a new invention. When anyone is allowed to copy a new invention instantly, there is not enough incentive to innovate. A good patent system must strike a balance between these two forces.
Re:Dasung just released a 25 inch eInk monitor
by quercetumMons on Saturday December 26, 2020 @06:46AM
(#25542853)
>inventors are not sufficiently compensated
Patents do little to nothing in this regard.
Re:Dasung just released a 25 inch eInk monitor
by tsujp on Saturday December 26, 2020 @08:07AM
(#25543216)
Incorrect. Patents quite literally to provide the developer of a new technology a legal monopoly for some time so they can (maybe) recoup their costs as an incentivisation mechanism to encourage innovation.
Re:Dasung just released a 25 inch eInk monitor
by brlewis on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @10:15AM
(#25570461)
s/literally/theoretically/
When I'm looking to spend money to solve a problem, I search for a product or service to buy.
I never, ever, ever search for a patent to license, because that's stepping into a legal minefield.
Show me a field where people looking to spend money to solve a problem search the patent database for solutions, and I'll believe there's a field where patents are a good thing.
Re:Dasung just released a 25 inch eInk monitor
by tsujp on Saturday December 26, 2020 @06:28AM
(#25542771)
I already explained why that's not the case. Not everyone has the capacity to work charitably, as much as that would make for a better world, and resorting to "this is bad let's completely get rid of it" completely ignores the intermediate state required to transition to that utopia.
This is not broad-strokes true. Within the realm of tech? Maybe. Within the realm of XYZ? Maybe.
Innovation requires investment and time. The classic example for the positive merits of the patent system is the pharmaceutical industry. No pharma company is going to spend 5 - 20 years and millions or billions developing new medicine if someone can immediately copy it and make a generic brand pricing it cheaper (they don't need to make back those costs). The issue of drugs costing an arm and a leg here is not really relevant either as that's moreso an American phenomenon, here in Australia or the UK they are reasonably priced.
Anyway the point here is that the patent system's happy-path design is to give the inventor of X time to make their money back and some profit before competition drives the price down. Is that abused? Absolutely whole-heartedly yes. Is the solution to the abuse the absolute removal of the patent system? Absolutely not.