this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
652 points (96.6% liked)

Technology

69156 readers
3130 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Square (now Block), sparked a weekend’s worth of debate around intellectual property, patents, and copyright, with a characteristically terse post declaring, “delete all IP law.”

X’s current owner Elon Musk quickly replied, “I agree.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] markovs_gun@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (19 children)

This would be disastrous for actual manufacturing because a patent is the only thing that makes it worthwhile to spend a bunch of money upfront to develop a new technology. Unlike with software where you don't have nearly as much up front capital investment to develop something, it costs millions of dollars to get a manufacturing process up and running and in a good enough state to where it can actually work out financially. Without patents, your competitor can just take all of that work and investment and just copy it with the benefit of doing it right the first time, so they're able to undercut you on cost. The alternative is that everyone is super secretive about what they're doing and no knowledge is shared, which is even worse. Patents are an awesome solution to this problem because they are public documents that explain how technologies work, but the law allows a monopoly on that technology for a limited amount of time. I also feel that in the current landscape, copyright is probably also good (although I would prefer it to be more limited) because I don't want people who are actually coming up with new ideas having to compete with thousands of AI slop copycats ruining the market.

TL;DR- patents are good if you're actually building things, tech bros are morons who think everything is software.

[–] jegp@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Patent documents are rarely useful because they're kept as general and opaque as possible to cover as many innovations as possible. I agree that it's important to protect manufacturing, but patents are not the right way to go about it for at least two reasons: (1) they block innovation by design (e-ink screens are great examples) and (2) they create a huge barrier to entry for new ideas (think about how many lawyers are making a living on this) I disagree with the senders on so many things. But patents were invented in a world of monarchies and craftsmen. Time to go!

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Patents would be fine if the bar for "innovation" would be much higher, software patents weren't a thing, there was way more research done into prior art, and there would be different (shorter) lengths for patents depending on what industry they target.

Like, if it's manufacturing or something like drugs where it takes years before you can start making profit, sure, make them 10-20 years. If it' something you make money off of immediately, it should be shorter.

[–] jegp@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I actually agree that the patent system could be improved a lot. Not all things are bad about it.

What do you mean with "innovation"? How would that be defined?

[–] amju_wolf@pawb.social 1 points 6 hours ago

Protecting innovative stuff is literally the point of patents and why the system exists. Anything "new" is by definition innovation, except the bar is really low currently, with very little research being done into prior art.

Patented stuff should be non-obvious, and not a simple derivative of existing stuff (i.e. when there are square buttons and circle buttons you shouldn't be able to patent a button that has 2 corners square and 2 circle just because it's "novel" because it's just a very simple and logical step).

So basically, make the bar for a patent much higher, and require some proof into the research of prior art and explaining why/how your patent is different.

Also, patents should expire early/not be renewable if you don't actually use them (so move a certain number of units / generate some amount of revenue using your patents). So you couldn't patent random BS in the hopes someone else will break your patent by accident.

Or even better, just outright punish patent trolls.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Patent documents are rarely useful because they're kept as general and opaque as possible to cover as many innovations as possible.

I think this is a problem that can be fixed inside of patent system. Make it so by the end of patent life there is "how to build production line of this" manual.

load more comments (16 replies)