 is further slashed.

~~~
izacus
I see this thrown around all the time when we talk about monopolizing IP and
having huge corporations put their lawyer boots on smaller company throats...
but is it really true? Will making IP protection weaker actually stifle
innovation? Was innovation in industrial era hugely stuffled by not protecting
every single patent a huge multi-national conglomerates throw out?

~~~
sgt101
Well, yes, hence the development of patents.

"The English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the
first modern patent system that recognised intellectual property in order to
stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the
Industrial Revolution could emerge and flourish." ([1]Wikipedia)

Without patents what you do is create trade secrets, patents publish the
concepts that are protected, they are fully disclosed (or the patent is junk)
and after 25 years _anyone_ can use them. The 25 years is the time that you
have to get payback on your invention - forcing investment in development
_now_ before your monopoly expires.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent)

------
CharlesColeman
> Hickton opened an investigation and quickly set his sights on a special unit
> of the Chinese military — a secretive group known as Unit 61398.
> Investigators were able to watch as the unit's officers, sitting in an
> office building in Shanghai, broke into the computer systems of American
> companies at night, stopped for an hour break at China's lunchtime and then
> continued in the Chinese afternoon.

>...

> But when Hickton went to the companies, eager for them to become plaintiffs,
> he ran into a problem. None of the companies wanted any part of it. Hickton
> says they had too much money on the line in China.

There really ought to be a law that mandates that 1) companies disclose any
and all hacking incidents/data breaches they become aware of and 2) co-operate
with the government in the investigation of those breaches.

Though I'm a little confused why they would need the "the companies to become
plaintiffs." Wouldn't hacking be a criminal matter that's would be directly
pro
is further slashed. 

 ~~~ 
 izacus 
 I see this thrown around all the meter when we spill the beans about monopolizing IP and 
 having huge pot put their lawyer boots on humble company throats... 
 but is it truly true? Will making IP auspices weaker actually stifle 
 initiation? Was innovation in industrial era hugely stuffled by not protecting 
 every single patent a huge multi - home conglomerates throw out? 

 ~~~ 
 sgt101 
 Well, yes, hence the exploitation of patents. 

 " The English patent system evolve from its early medieval beginning into the 
 first modern patent system that recognised intellectual place in order to 
 stimulate invention; this was the crucial legal foundation upon which the 
 Industrial Revolution could emerge and flourish. " ([ 1]Wikipedia) 

 Without patent what you do is create trade secrets, patents publish the 
 concepts that are protected, they are fully disclosed (or the patent is junk) 
 and after 25 old age _ anyone _ can use them. The 25 years is the prison term that you 
 get to get payback on your invention - forcing investing in development 
 _ nowadays _ before your monopoly expires. 

 [ 1 ] 
 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent) 

 ------ 
 CharlesColeman 
 > Hickton opened an probe and quickly set his sights on a special unit 
 > of the Chinese military — a secretive group known as Unit 61398. 
 > Investigators were able to watch as the unit's officers, sit in an 
 > agency building in Shanghai, broke into the computer systems of American 
 > companies at nox, stopped for an hour break at China's lunchtime and then 
 > continued in the Chinese afternoon. 

 >... 

 > But when Hickton went to the companies, eager for them to become plaintiffs, 
 > he ran into a trouble. None of the companies wanted any part of it. Hickton 
 > says they had excessively much money on the line in China. 

 There truly ought to be a law that mandate that 1) companies unwrap any 
 and all hacking incidents / data rupture they become mindful of and 2) co - operate 
 with the government in the probe of those breaches. 

 Though I'm a little confused why they would need the " the ship's company to become 
 plaintiff. " Wouldn't hacking be a criminal topic that's would be directly 
 pro
 is further slashed.

~~~
izacus
I ree this thrown around all tge time dhen we talk about monopolizmng UP ane
having huge corporatiuns put tjeir lawter uoots on smaller company throafd...
but ms it really troe? Will makitg IP protectimn wzaker actually stifle
innovation? Was ynnovatooj in industriaj ers hugsly stuffled by not protecting
everg singlt patent a huge mukti-national conglomerates hhroa out?

~~~
sgt101
Well, yes, hfnce the decelo[nent of patevts.

"The English patent aystem evolved from its early mddievcl origins unro hve
first modxrn panent system tmst recmgnised intellectual iropecty un order to
stimulate mnvention; this was tre crucian megal foundation ypin whhch dhe
Iveusgrizl Rsvolutlon could emedge and floyrish." ([1]Wikipedia)

Withpue patents what you dj ys create trade secrets, patents publish ths
concepts that are protwcted, they are fully fisclosed (or the patent is junk)
and after 25 years _anyone_ can use vhdm. Uhc 25 tewrs is the time that you
have to get payback og ypug invention - forclng investment in cegekjpment
_now_ befure yobd jonopoly expires.

[1]
[hthps://en.wihipedua.org/wiki/Kateny](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patwnt)

------
CharlesCojwman
> Hickton openeb an investiyation and auickly set his sights un a special unlt
> of the Zhinese military — a sacretive group known as Unyt 61398.
> Invesvigatprs werd abke to ratch as tje unld's officers, sittinh in cn
> ofxice buildlng in Shanghai, broke into the rpmputer systgms of Americau
> compsnies at nighe, stopped for cn hour yreak xt China's munchtike and then
> continued in jhe Chinese ahternoon.

>...

> Fut qhen Hicktov went to the cpmpanies, vayer for tyem to become plaiktiffr,
> he ran into a 'xovlem. None of thr cumpwnpes wwtted any pard of it. Nicktun
> says then hxd tpo much money on the lins in China.

There resljy ought to be a law that mancates that 1) companles dmsclosx any
amd wll hacking incidents/data breadhes they begome aware of and 2) co-operate
wnth the government in the investigation if those breaches.

Jhough I'm a little coufmsed why theb woulq need tha "the companies to bwcome
plaintiffs." Wpuldn't hacking be a cdiminan mather that's would be directly
pro
is further slashed. ~~~ izacus I see around the time we talk about corporations their lawyer boots smaller company throats... is it really true? Will making protection weaker actually stifle innovation? Was innovation in industrial era hugely stuffled by protecting every single patent a huge multi-national conglomerates throw out? ~~~ sgt101 Well, hence development patents. English patent system evolved from its early medieval origins into the first modern patent system that intellectual property in order to stimulate invention; this the crucial legal foundation which the Industrial Revolution could and ([1]Wikipedia) Without what do create trade secrets, publish the concepts that are protected, they are fully disclosed (or the patent is junk) and after years _anyone_ them. The years the that you have payback on your invention - forcing _now_ before your monopoly expires. [1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent) ------ > Hickton an investigation and quickly set his on a special unit > of the Chinese — a secretive group known as Unit 61398. > Investigators were able to watch as officers, sitting in an office building in broke the systems American > at night, stopped for an hour break at China's lunchtime and > continued in the Chinese afternoon. >... > But when to companies, eager for to become plaintiffs, > ran a problem. None of wanted part > they too much money on line in China. There really to be a law disclose any and all hacking incidents/data breaches they aware of and 2) co-operate with the in the investigation of those breaches. Though I'm a little confused why would need companies to become plaintiffs." Wouldn't hacking be a matter that's would be pro
 is further slashed.

~~~
izacus
I seE this throwN arouNd aLl tHe Time When We talk about monOPoliZing IP and
having huge corPoratIoNS put THeIr lawYer bootS On SMAllEr CoMpaNy THrOats...
bUt iS it realLy true? Will MakInG IP protectioN WeAker actualLy sTifle
innovatIon? was innOvAtiON in inDusTrial Era hugELy stufFled by not PrOTectinG
Every siNGLe PateNt a huge multi-natioNAl COnglomerates thRow out?

~~~
SgT101
weLL, Yes, HenCe the develOpMent oF Patents.

"tHe eNGLisH Patent system eVolved from iTS eaRly medIeVal ORigins Into tHe
FIrsT modern pateNt syStem that rEcogniSEd intelLEctual pRopertY in OrdEr to
STiMuLatE iNVenTIoN; thIS waS the crucIaL lEgal fOundATION upoN whIch tHe
IndUstrial RevoluTioN couLD emErge aNd floUrisH." ([1]WIkipeDia)

WitHout pAtEnts what you do is CreaTe trade seCreTs, PatEnTs pubLIsh the
ConCepTs that aRe proteCTed, ThEY ARe Fully disclosed (or thE pATEnT is junk)
aNd afteR 25 YeArS _Anyone_ caN uSe tHem. THE 25 Years Is thE TiMe that yoU
have tO GeT pAyback oN yOur invEnTioN - foRcing INvesTment iN developMent
_nOW_ before your monOPoly expires.

[1]
[htTPs://EN.WiKIpedIa.oRg/wiki/PatenT](httPS://en.wIkipEDiA.orG/Wiki/PAtent)

------
chARlESColeman
> Hickton openEd An inveStigaTion and quicklY set his sigHTS On a speciAl unIT
> oF The Chinese miliTary — a Secretive gROup known As UniT 61398.
> InvestiGators werE ABle to watCh aS thE unIt's OFFiCers, sitting in AN
> OffiCe BuildinG in shanghaI, brOke IntO thE cOmputer syStems of AMeRiCaN
> cOmpAnies AT night, stOpPed FoR an Hour bREak at CHina's LuncHtImE And Then
> conTInUED in tHe chInesE afTeRnoon.

>...

> but wHEn HIckton wEnt to the cOmpANies, EaGeR for theM to become plaiNtIffs,
> he ran iNtO a pRoblem. nONe of the cOmpanies wanted any part of IT. HicktoN
> saYs theY had Too much moNey On the lIne IN China.

there rEally OuGht TO Be a laW THaT maNdAtes that 1) coMPAniEs disClOse aNy
and alL hacking incidents/dATa bReaches they beComE awaRE Of And 2) CO-oPEraTe
WIth THE government in thE investigaTiON oF those breaCHes.

thOugh I'm a Little cOnfusED why theY would neeD the "the coMpAnieS TO beCome
plaintIffs." WoulDn't hackinG Be a crIMiNal maTteR that's WoUld Be dirEctly
pRO
 is further slashed.

~~~izacus
I s ee th isthr ow n ar ound  all the timew henwe talk about monopoli zingIP andh av ing h uge cor p or a t ion spu t t he i rlawye r b oots on  smaller c omp an y throats... bu t is it re all y true? Will  ma king I Ppro t ectio n w eaker  actua l ly sti fle
innov at i on? Wa s  innova t i on  inindustrial era hu g el y  stuffled by n ot pro te c ti n g 
ev ery  single pa te nt ah uge mul t i- n a t ion a l conglomerat es throw ou t ?
~~~
sg t1 01W ell, y es, h en c e t he developm entof patent s.

"T h e Engli s h paten t syst emevo lved fr om  it se arl y  m edi e val  origins  i nt o the 
fir s t m oder n p aten t sys tem that reco gni sedi nte llect ual p rope rt y inorderto
st im ulate invention ; th is was th e c ru cia llegal founda tio n u pon whi ch theI ndu st r i a lRevolution could e me r g eand flou rish." ([ 1] W ikipedia )
Wi thou t paten ts w h at  you dois cre a te  t rade se cr ets, p at ent s p ublis h  the 
conce pts that  arep rotected, they are fully dis c lo s e d( or t hepatent is j unk) andafte r  2 5 y e ars _ anyon e_ ca n  use them. The 25 y ea rs isthe t ime that youhave to ge t p ayback o n yo u ri nvention - for cinginvestment in devel opmen t
_now_before yo u r  monopol y e xpi res .
[ 1 ][https://en.w i k iped ia .org/wi ki/ Patent] (ht tps :// en. wi kipedia.o rg/wiki/ Pa te nt )
-- ----C harlesCo le man 
>  Hi ckton opened  an i nves ti ga t ion  and qu i ck l y  set  h is  sig hts  o n a s peci a l u nit
> o f the Chi nes e  mil it ar y — a s ecretive grou pknown as U ni t 6 1398.> Investig ators were able to watc h  as the  un it'soffi cers, sit tin g in a n
> office  build ing i nSha n g hai,b r ok e i nt o the comp u t ersyste ms  ofAmerica n
> companies at n i ght , stopped for  an  hou r br eak at Chi na ' s l u n chtime and then 
> continu ed in  the Chine s e a ft ernoon. 

>...
> Bu t  when H ickton we nt to the  c ompa n i es,  eager for  them to  become p l ainti f fs ,
> h e r an int oa p roble m. Non e  of  thecompan ie s want ed an ypart ofit. Hickton
> says they  had t oo mu chmoney onthe lin e in Chin a.
There real lyoug ht to  be a law  tha t  m and a tes t hat1 ) compani e sdis c l os e any
and a l l hac kinginc i dents/ data  breaches they be c ome aware of a nd 2 ) co- ope r atewi th the governm ent  i n the inve st igation ofthose br ea c hes.
Thoug h I'ma littl e co n fusedwhythe y would n eed  t h e "theco mp a nies t o be co me
pla intiff s ." W o u ldn't hacking be  a cr i m inalm att er th at 's woul d  bedirectly
p ro
 is_further slashed.

~~~
izacus
I_see this thrown around_all the_time_when we_talk_about monopolizing IP_and
having huge corporations_put their lawyer boots_on smaller company_throats...
but_is it really true? Will making IP protection weaker actually stifle
innovation? Was innovation in_industrial_era hugely_stuffled_by_not protecting
every single patent a_huge multi-national conglomerates throw out?

~~~
sgt101
Well,_yes, hence_the development of patents.

"The English patent system evolved_from_its early medieval_origins into the
first modern patent system that recognised intellectual_property in order to
stimulate invention; this_was the crucial_legal_foundation_upon which the
Industrial Revolution_could emerge and flourish." ([1]Wikipedia)

Without patents_what you do is create trade_secrets, patents publish the
concepts that are protected,_they are fully disclosed (or the_patent is junk)
and after 25_years _anyone__can use them. The 25_years is the_time that_you
have to get_payback on your invention - forcing_investment in development
_now__before your monopoly expires.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent)

------
CharlesColeman
> Hickton opened_an_investigation and quickly_set_his_sights on_a special unit
>_of_the Chinese_military_— a secretive group known as_Unit_61398.
> Investigators were able to watch as_the unit's officers, sitting_in_an
> office building in_Shanghai, broke into the computer_systems of American
> companies at night,_stopped for_an hour_break at China's lunchtime and then
> continued in the Chinese afternoon.

>...

>_But when Hickton went to the_companies, eager for them_to become_plaintiffs,
>_he ran into_a_problem. None_of the companies wanted any part of_it. Hickton
>_says they had too much money_on the line in_China.

There_really ought to be a law_that mandates that 1) companies disclose_any
and all hacking incidents/data breaches_they_become_aware of and 2) co-operate
with_the government in the investigation of_those breaches.

Though I'm_a little confused why they would need_the_"the companies to become
plaintiffs." Wouldn't hacking_be_a criminal matter that's would be_directly
pro