Ask HN: Do you think Intellectual Property laws do more good or harm? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do you think Intellectual Property laws do more good or harm?

7 pointsbkmeneguello11 comments

Millions of people suffer because medical equipments and medicine are protected by these laws, there is no point in thread an individual liberty to protect an abstract concept like an idea or invention.

View on HN

I'm one that believes that patents are an important part of society. One of the reasons the U.S. has had so many technological advancements is that people are able to profit from their ideas. Right now many people are trying to come up with the next million-dollar idea. Most will be trivial without much impact, even if they make a million dollars, but a few will change everything or a combination of them will change everything. Yes, protecting ideas may sometimes seem like they are hurting people but keep in mind that in most cases the idea would have never been had there not been protection for ideas.

The problem comes when people start to game the system and use their influence to get an advantage over others. The problems we see are mostly related to the way the rules have been set. So it's a matter of tweaking the rules rather than getting rid of the system.

So, no, I don't think Intellectual Property laws do more harm than good.

We need some mechanism by which to encourage people with good ideas to make those ideas available to the world rather than keeping it to themselves. Intellectual Property laws are our current mechanism for rewarding such behavior and thereby encouraging people to add value to the system.

Maybe they aren't optimal. Maybe there's a better solution.

But doing away with them without first coming up with a superior method for making sure those ideas get shared at all is a great way to strangle the supply of better ideas and new inventions. Counting on people to give that stuff away for free out of the goodness of their hearts so everyone else can benefit while the brilliance of the originator gets treated abusively like slave labor is an excellent way for the world to cut its own throat.

Brilliant people can choose to turn their brilliance towards a "Fuck you, got mine!" personal policy if the world wishes to habitually and by policy fuck them over. Encouraging them to behave that way is an excellent way to actively foster a dystopian future.

Way more harm than good. "Intellectual property" locks up ideas, which hinders human progress. That might be tolerable if the monopoly so granted was short. But it's not, it's what, life+70 years or something? And it never gets shorter - we only increase copyright term.

The legal setup around copyrights and patents is also indicative of "bad". We can no longer inspect some item and decide whether or not it's copyrighted, for example. We have decided that the default is "assume copyright". You basically have to have a trial to decide whether some use is OK under one of the exceptions to copyright. This limits educational and critical use, and this, in practice, limits free speech.

The original intent of patents was to provide the inventor a window of opportunity to profit from their invention. Unfortunately corporations are gaming the system and have weaponized patents. The basic problem is that whilst you can get a patent granted for tens of thousands, large corporations wilfully infringe upon patents because it costs millions to defend them and the typical inventor does not have the resources to defend.

As with most things the IP laws have resulted in perverse incentives benefitting those who can afford to spend the shareholders' money in their quest to protect their monopolies. The little guy gets screwed, yet again.

I think they are more harmful than good (although in the past it might have been more neutral, although I am still against copyright/patent laws in general). I think patents and copyright should be abolished (although trademarks might be useful, although I don't know if the trademark laws should be altered a bit maybe). Stuff I write myself I make it to be public domain because I don't like copyright. Copyright/patents don't promote inventions; they tend to hinder it instead, I think.

What is your counter-argument to people who write for a living and say they need copyright to protect their livelihoods? Say fiction or technical manual writers? It's the entirety of their work product. Should they just find something else to do? How should they be rewarded for their time and effort? Not trolling, just trying to understand how an anti-copyright advocate would argue this case.

Question Copyright has many ideas (and there are also counterarguments in the comments, although there are problems with some parts of some of the counterarguments). I would buy a book if I want a printed copy, at least. There is also possibility of agreeing to write or modify it in exchange for payment, and there is also trademarks (including the "Creator Endorsed" mark), and I am not suggesting to abolish trademarks (although a lot of fair use should be allowed in many circumstances, maybe more than the current laws I don't know). Also, I am not suggesting that someone should be forced to publish something, but if they do, then someone could copy it (if they want to), with or without modifications (although the author should be allowed to specify (if he want to) that altered versions should not be confused with the original version (except for technical compatibility purposes in some cases, e.g. if a file format requires the file to contain the text "This file is authorized by [company name]", then it does, although the documentation that comes with the file would mention that it is not true and is only included for the compatibility reasons)). You can also charge money for a CD, DVD, admission fee for a concert, etc, or even for download if you want to (although I am not advising it, and even if you do, others do not have to change for the download too). If you have not sold any DVDs yet, then nobody is allowed to steal one in order to copy it or trespass on your property in order to make a copy, but once you sell a copy to someone who wishes to copy it, then they can (including format shifting). Also, a company providing it as a service could still have terms of service that say they can terminate your service (but cannot force you to pay for it in this case, unless you have already paid and received the service in exchange) (also, someone can still set up a competing service if they don't like their terms of service, anyways).

[0] https://questioncopyright.org/understanding-free-content

Patents are one way for the state to select who will become rich and who won't. There is little justification for "intellectual property" in a free market.

In the US you mean? The problem is much more endemic in that you need money to hire a good lawyer to fight against someone with money, be it patent,civil or criminal law

There is a historical argument against software patents. And one can be made for shorter durations for hardware ones now.

I think In 99% of the cases, the costs, work and effort by far outweighs possible benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com