Hacker News Reader

Comment by quercetumMons | Hacker News Reader

>This is not broad-strokes true.

It absolutely is, though. Innovation is inherently hampered when someone owns the right to the use of a technology.

Innovation is also hampered when inventors are not sufficiently compensated for the broad social value they create with a new invention. When anyone is allowed to copy a new invention instantly, there is not enough incentive to innovate. A good patent system must strike a balance between these two forces.

>inventors are not sufficiently compensated

Patents do little to nothing in this regard.

Incorrect. Patents quite literally to provide the developer of a new technology a legal monopoly for some time so they can (maybe) recoup their costs as an incentivisation mechanism to encourage innovation.

s/literally/theoretically/

When I'm looking to spend money to solve a problem, I search for a product or service to buy.

I never, ever, ever search for a patent to license, because that's stepping into a legal minefield.

Show me a field where people looking to spend money to solve a problem search the patent database for solutions, and I'll believe there's a field where patents are a good thing.

I already explained why that's not the case. Not everyone has the capacity to work charitably, as much as that would make for a better world, and resorting to "this is bad let's completely get rid of it" completely ignores the intermediate state required to transition to that utopia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com