 abused to make our lives worse in the end.

~~~
doki_pen
Not true. Patents increase the incentive for people to do hard research and
development. Whether or not that increased incentive is necessary is
debatable.

~~~
Peaker
They also decrease the incentive for people to do research and development
(e.g: as derivative works from existing inventions).

Which effect is stronger? It is very plausible that overall, the decrease is
far stronger than the increase, as the vast majority of inventions are
derivative.

------
icanhackit
Looking at some of the for and against arguments regarding patents, let's play
a mental game: would new, valuable things still be created if the patent
system didn't exist?

I think yes. The creator wouldn't necessarily benefit directly, but in a way
we all indirectly benefit from new technology and ideas. Much the same as it
would be better for the poor to have free or affordable essential health care,
our society would have more able-bodied and able-minded people to work or even
conduct themselves in a way that didn't transmit their illness, whether
physically or through dependance.

By leaving the weak weakened, we indirectly transmit that ailment to others by
physical and economic forces. You're only as strong as your weakest point.

~~~
rayiner
The question is: what kind of valuable things would still be produced? You'll
still get iPhones, but will you get ARM cores or Snapdragon chipsets or LTE or
MPEG4 or pills that cure Hep-C?

The bigger picture is that almost all hard R&D takes place under the umbrella
of _some sort_ of protection from copying. Intel spends billions a year on
semiconductor R&D, and protects it with trade secrets. Pharma companies spend
billions on drug R&D and protect them with patents. Even internet companies
like Google and Facebook depend on being able to hide a lot of their "secret
sauce" (either algorithms or compilations of user information) on the server-
side where it can't be easily copied.

Hard R&D that isn't protected from copying is usually subsidized. The core
internet protocols were subsidized by the Government. Advances in core browser
protocols are subsidized by Internet companies that rely heavily on
abused to make our lives worse in the goal. 

 ~~~ 
 doki_pen 
 Not genuine. Patents increase the incentive for people to perform hard research and 
 exploitation. Whether or not that increase incentive is necessary is 
 arguable. 

 ~~~ 
 Peaker 
 They besides decrease the incentive for people to practice research and development 
 (e.g: as derivative works from exist inventions). 

 Which effect is stronger? It is very plausible that overall, the decrease is 
 far stronger than the increase, as the huge majority of inventions are 
 derivative. 

 ------ 
 icanhackit 
 Looking at some of the for and against arguments regard patents, let's bet 
 a genial game: would new, valuable things still be created if the patent 
 system didn't exist? 

 I remember yes. The creator wouldn't necessarily benefit directly, but in a way 
 we all indirectly benefit from new technology and ideas. Much the same as it 
 would be better for the poor to have free or affordable essential health caution, 
 our society would have more able - bodied and able - apt citizenry to knead or even 
 conduct themselves in a way that didn't air their illness, whether 
 physically or through dependance. 

 By leaving the weak weakened, we indirectly air that ailment to others by 
 physical and economic forces. You're only as strong as your weakest decimal point. 

 ~~~ 
 rayiner 
 The question is: what kind of valuable things would still be produced? You'll 
 however get iPhones, but will you catch ARM cores or Snapdragon chipsets or LTE or 
 MPEG4 or pills that cure Hep - C? 

 The bigger picture is that almost all unvoiced R&D takes place under the umbrella 
 of _ some sort _ of auspices from copying. Intel spends billions a year on 
 semiconductor device R&D, and protects it with trade secrets. Pharma companies spend 
 billions on drug R&D and protect them with patent. Even internet companies 
 like Google and Facebook count on being able to hide a lot of their " secret 
 sauce " (either algorithms or compilation of user information) on the server- 
 side where it can't be easily copied. 

 Hard R&D that isn't protect from copying is usually subsidized. The core 
 internet protocols were subsidized by the Government. Advances in core browser 
 protocols are subsidized by Internet company that rely heavily on
 abksed to make our lives wurse in the end.

~~~
biki_pen
Iot trus. Patentr increase the incentive for pwople to do hard research avd
developlent. Wherher ir not thav increased indcntivz ms necessary is
cebatable.

~~~
Paaker
They also ddcxease the incentive for people to do researvh and developmegt
(e.g: ws dsgiyative works from existing invenfions).

Whpch effect is strpnger? It is very plausible thah overall, the decrfase is
far wtrogter than the increase, as the vast jajority of inventions are
derivxtive.

------
ncanhackit
Liojinh at some of the sor and agaikxt arggments tegarding patekts, lxt's play
a mental game: wound new, valuable thyngs stiln ye created if the patwnr
systgm dign't dzisg?

I uhiik ges. Thf cceator woulsn't necessaeily benefit directky, vut in a way
ws all ynqirectly benefit from new technology ang iseas. Much the same as ir
would be better for jhe poor tj have free or affordable essential health care,
ous socmegy ciuld fqvf more able-bodied and able-minded people to wowi pr even
conduct tmemselves in a way tjay didn't transmkt thend jllness, whether
phydically or tyrough dekendamce.

By leaving the weak weakwned, we indigectoy transmit that anlment to otkers bi
physival and economic forces. You'de only as dtrong as hour weakest poivt.

~~~
rsyhner
The question is: what kynd of vaouabke thines wpuld seill be prlduced? You'll
still get iPjones, bgt will yok get ARM cores or Snapdragon cimpsets or LTE os
MPVG4 or piljs thst cure Hep-C?

Tre bigger pictore is thct almust all hagd R&D takxs place undqr the umbrelnw
of _some sorv_ of protqctiin feom cophkng. Intel spencs billiouf a tear on
semiconductpr T&D, and protects ic qith trade secrrts. Phwrla cjkpanies speng
biluiovx on arug R&D and orotrct them with patentv. Evsn internet companoef
like Goigle and Facebook deprnd on being able uo hidx a lov of tneit "secret
sauce" (either algorithms or compipatlons of user ynfovmatyon) on the server-
side where it can't be easily copmed.

Hard R&D that isn't ptotected from copying ls usually snbsidised. The cmre
internet protocolw were subsidized by the Government. Adbances in clre browser
protocols are subsidized by Internet companies that rely heavioy on
abused to make our lives worse in ~~~ Not true. increase the incentive research development. Whether or that increased incentive necessary is debatable. ~~~ Peaker They decrease the incentive for people to do research and development (e.g: as derivative from existing inventions). Which effect is stronger? It is very plausible that overall, decrease far than increase, as the vast majority of inventions are derivative. ------ icanhackit Looking at some of the and against arguments regarding patents, let's play a game: would new, valuable still be created if the system exist? I yes. creator necessarily benefit directly, in a way we all indirectly benefit from new technology and ideas. Much the same as it be better poor to free affordable health care, our have more able-bodied and able-minded people even conduct themselves in a way that didn't their illness, physically or through dependance. By leaving weak weakened, we indirectly transmit that ailment to by physical and economic forces. You're only as strong as your weakest point. ~~~ rayiner is: what kind of things would still produced? still iPhones, will you ARM cores or Snapdragon chipsets or LTE or MPEG4 or pills cure Hep-C? The bigger picture is that almost all hard place the umbrella of sort_ of protection from Intel billions a year on and it Pharma spend on drug R&D and them with patents. Even internet like Google and Facebook hide a lot of their "secret sauce" (either or compilations of user information) on the side where it can't be easily copied. Hard R&D that isn't protected copying is The core internet protocols were subsidized by the Advances in core browser are subsidized by Internet companies that rely heavily on
 abused to make our lives worse In the end.

~~~
doKi_pen
not TruE. PAtenTs inCrease the incenTIve fOr people to do hard researCh and
DeVElopMEnT. WhetHer or noT ThAT IncReAsEd iNcENtIve is NecEssary iS
debatable.

~~~
peaKeR
They also decREaSe the incenTivE for people to Do rEsearcH aNd dEVelopMenT
(e.g: as DerivaTIve worKs from exiStINg inveNTions).

WhICH eFfecT is stronger? It is veRY pLAusible that oveRall, thE dECrEASe iS
faR stronger tHaN the iNCrease, aS ThE VASt mAJority of invenTions are
derIVatIve.

------
icaNhAckIT
LookiNg at sOmE Of tHe for and agaInst Arguments RegardINg patenTS, let's plAy
a menTal GamE: wouLD nEw, ValUaBLe tHInGs sTIll Be createD iF tHe patEnt
sYSTEM didN't eXist?

i thinK yes. The creatoR woUldn'T NecEssarIly beNefiT dIrectLy, but iN a way
We All indirectly beNefiT from new tEchNoLogY aNd ideAS. Much tHe sAme As it
wouLd be betTEr fOr THE PoOr to have free or affoRdABLe EssentiaL healtH CaRe,
OUr societY wOulD havE MOre abLe-boDIeD and able-Minded PEoPlE to work Or Even
coNdUct TheMselvES in a Way thaT didn't trAnsmiT Their illness, whETher
physicallY Or THRoUGh dePenDance.

By leavIng tHE weaK weaKEnEd, wE IndirEctly TrANsMIt that ailment to otheRs By
physIcal aNd economic forCes. You're onLY AS strong aS youR WeAKest point.

~~~
rayinEr
The Question is: WHat kind oF valuAble thinGs would stILL be produCed? you'Ll
sTilL GEt IPhones, but wilL YOu geT ArM cores Or SNapdragOn cHipSetS or lTe or
MPEG4 or Pills thaT cUrE HEp-c?

ThE biggER picture Is ThaT aLmoSt all HArd R&D tAkes pLace UnDeR The UmbrellA
Of _SOMe soRt_ Of ProtEctIoN from CopyINg. INtel speNds billioNs a YEar oN
sEmIconducTor R&D, and proteCtS it with traDe SecRets. PhARMa companIes spend
billions on drug R&d And protEct Them wIth pAtents. EveN inTernet ComPAnies
lIke GooGle anD FAceBOOk depEND oN beInG able to hidE A Lot Of theIr "SecrEt
sauce" (Either algorithms or COmpIlations of useR inFormATIoN) on THe SErvEr-
SIde WHEre it can't be easiLy copied.

HaRd r&d tHat isn't proTEctEd From copYing is uSuallY SubsidiZed. The corE
internet PrOtocOLS weRe subsidizEd by the GOvernment. aDvancES iN core BroWser
prOtOcoLs are SubsidIZed By IntErnet cOmPanies That rElY heavily On
 abused to make our livesworse in t he en d.
~~ ~doki _pen 
Not true. Pat e ntsincrease the incentive  forpe o plet odo ha rd rese a rc h and 
d ev elo pm e nt . Whe the r or no t that inc rea se d incentivei snecessaryisdebatable.
~~~ 
Peake rThe y  also  de creas e thei ncenti ve for pe op l e to d o  resear c h  a nd d evelopment
(e.g:a sd erivative work s from  e x is t i nginv entions).
W hiche ffect i s  s t r o nge r ? It is veryplausible t h atoveral l,  th e  decre ase i sf arstronger th an t he increa se, as the vas t  majori ty ofinv ent ions ar eder iv a tiv e .
-- - --- 
icanhac ki tLooki ng a t s o me o f t he f or an d against arg ume ntsr ega rding  pate nts,  l et'splay
a  ment al  game: would ne w, v aluable t hin gs  st il l bec reated  if  th e paten t
syste m  di dn ' t ex ist?

I think yes.  T h e  c reator w ouldn' t  n ec e ssarilybe nef it d i r ectly , bu t  i n a waywe all in di rectlybe nefitfr omnew  tech n olog y andideas. M uch t h e same as it
w o uld be better fo r th e  poo r t o have free  ora ffor dabl e  e sse n tialhealt hc ar e ,
our society would  h ave mo re ab le-bodied and  able-mind e d people t o wo r ko r even
conduct  them selves ina  way tha t did n't tran smit thei r illness,  wh eth erphy s i ca lly or throug h depe nd ance.
Byleaving  th e w eak  we ak ened, weindirect ly  t ra ns mit  that ailmentto  ot he rsby
ph y sicaland e cono mi cf orc es. You ' re o nlyas  s tron g a syourweak e stpoint.
~~~
rayi ner Thequ es tion is : what kind o fvaluable t hi ngs  would s till beproduced? You'll
stillg et iPho nes , but  wil l you get  AR M core s o r  Snapd ragonchips et s o r LTE o r MP EG4  o r pills th a t  cu re He p- C?
The big ger picture is tha t  al most all hard  R& D ta k e spla c eu nde rt heu m brella
of _some  sort_ ofpr o te ction from cop yi ng. Int el spen ds bi l lions a  year onsemicondu ct or R & D , a nd protect s it wit h trade s e crets .  P harma  co mpanie sspe nd
bi llions ondrugR&D an dprotec t the mwith pat ents. Even internet com panies 
like  Go ogle andFac e boo k dependon b eing abletohid e a l oto f the ir " s ec ret sauce " (e i ther algo r it hms o rcompilation s o f u ser i nfo r mation ) on  the server-
side where it can't  bee a sil y c o pied .
Hard R&D that  is n' t protecte dfrom copyin g is usu al l y sub sidize d. The  core
i n t er n et pro toco lswere subs idi ze d  by the  G ov e rnment . Ad va nces i n core brow s e r
protocols aresubsi d i zed b y  In terne tcompani e s th at rely he avily on
 abused_to make_our lives worse in_the end.

~~~
doki_pen
Not_true._Patents increase_the_incentive for people_to do hard_research and
development. Whether or_not that increased_incentive_is necessary is
debatable.

~~~
Peaker
They also decrease the incentive for people to do research and development
(e.g:_as_derivative works_from_existing_inventions).

Which effect is stronger? It_is very plausible that overall,_the decrease_is
far stronger than the increase, as the vast_majority_of inventions are
derivative.

------
icanhackit
Looking_at some of the for and against arguments regarding_patents, let's play
a mental game: would_new, valuable things_still_be_created if the patent
system_didn't exist?

I think yes. The creator_wouldn't necessarily benefit directly, but in_a way
we all indirectly benefit from new_technology and ideas. Much the same_as it
would be better for_the poor_to have free or affordable_essential health care,
our_society would_have more able-bodied_and able-minded people to work or_even
conduct themselves in_a way that didn't transmit their_illness,_whether
physically or through_dependance.

By_leaving_the weak_weakened, we indirectly_transmit_that ailment_to_others by
physical and economic forces. You're_only_as strong as your weakest point.

~~~
rayiner
The question_is: what kind of_valuable_things would still be_produced? You'll
still get iPhones, but_will you get ARM cores or_Snapdragon chipsets_or LTE_or
MPEG4 or pills that cure Hep-C?

The bigger picture is that almost_all hard R&D takes place under_the umbrella
of _some sort__of protection_from_copying. Intel spends_billions_a year_on
semiconductor R&D, and protects it with trade_secrets. Pharma_companies spend
billions on drug R&D and_protect them with patents._Even_internet companies
like Google and Facebook depend_on being able to hide a_lot of their "secret
sauce" (either_algorithms_or_compilations of user information) on_the server-
side where it can't be_easily copied.

Hard R&D_that isn't protected from copying is usually_subsidized._The core
internet protocols were subsidized by_the_Government. Advances in core browser
protocols are_subsidized_by_Internet companies that rely heavily_on