In principle, a patent should cover specific machinery/process/material designed for a task rather than the underlying more ephemeral/indefinite concept powering the invention.
The interesting thing is that, of those, machine and process seem like the least conceited. Composition of matter seems more like sticking a flag in infinite ground. But in practice it’s the former two that power most of what I consider an abuse of the spirit of patent law. But perhaps that’s just my personal bias and the bio or materials people will disagree.
What can we say? Profit motive is a strong incentive and lawyers/judges are clever.
Anyways, with 7B people and counting, a term limited right to one idea in the infinite space of ideas seems less harmful than perpetual rights to a piece of land.
Interestingly, society agrees with you; for the most part, we don’t grant perpetual rights to a piece of land. Instead we charge property tax to ensure you are doing something productive with it. You have to generate enough free cash flow to pay the taxes or you lose the land.
We live in this complexity nightmare partly because all the simple and obvious solutions are easily patented.
The idea to incentivize public sharing of knowledge for a short term rent is not so stupid.
Also, the question whether math is discovered or invented is an old one, with arguments going either way. It’s not like people just stumble upon certain proofs, or that Newton was just lucky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Math..., for example, holds that math would still exist if there were no life anywhere in the universe (maybe even if there were no universe)
And there is nothing wrong with this concept; it encourages people to search and create, and prevents people from being abused by the strong and getting their findings stolen. Generally, this is beneficial for everyone and lets society moving forward and to higher levels of quality.
This is…basic philosophical knowledge about Plato’s ideas. It’s not up for debate.
I have a theory that the misnomer "intellectual property" is most ardently championed by (perhaps older) intelligent/creative people who fear losing their power. Fear that this may be their last great idea fosters withholding and subtracts from the opportunities of the many.
This comes up in other contexts. In cybersecurity, if one discovers a new exploit the natural instinct for most people is responsible disclosure, even without a bounty. However, the temptation to privatise that knowledge as a sellable "zero-day" is powerful. But what we see is that it's the mediocre who do that more. Top 0.1% hackers are so confident in their ability to find more and deadlier exploits at will, they don't hoard as it's beneath them.
Or they probably see it as leverage for a job with a company at some point in the future. Or an achievement they can put on their resume or show the world.
I might be wrong in assuming this, but I take it that you believe the disclosures of these top tier hackers are a result of an altruistic benevolence. If so, I think you're describing a soul rarer than the Loch Ness Monster. The best hackers do zero-day work because they love it and it pays (in cash, achievement, fame, etc.). If it doesn't pay, they'll probably find some other way of getting their kick upto and including trading exploits or data for cash.
Even the hacker who saved the net from Mirai all those years ago sold exploits.
I'm not sure I believe in that. Or rather, I think the idea of altruistic benevolence as a simple exclusive categorical is naive. Humans have super complex motives, often quite unconscious, multi-faceted and even in contradiction.
What I would say is that very high performing people think and behave in different ways. In political science (I'm thinking of Nicomachean Ethics but it's a recurring theme in modernity too) is the conceit of the "Great/Noble Man", whose competence places him "above" everyday perspectives and rituals. They're rare not because apparent altruism is rare, but because people of that calibre are rare.
This is why the conceit of "intellectual property" has always bothered me. I relate to what he describes as "finding things". Those things are are eternally "out there" for all to find. I can put up a signpost or build a road to show you the way, but how can a mere man own what is part of the infinite and eternal?