Hacker News Reader

Comment by coliveira | Hacker News Reader

Ok, so when the US steals it's irrelevant, but when the situation is the opposite now is relevant??

Why is hypocrisy brought up here? We are talking about national prosperity. Obviously what was beneficial to the US when it was a fledgling state is different than today

IP conventions were not formalized and nations were not signatories. Back in the early colonies Britain embargoes tech to prevent us from leapfrogging them, there was no IP protection framework, so I’m not sure what you’re on about.

It was more akin to intellectual property secrets.

No, IP law goes back much further than you imagine. The US started to grant patents in 1790 and the British even before that. What the US was doing was IP theft even in the law system that existed back then.

It wasn’t till the late 1700s that patents became form of intellectual property, before that it was a form of granting economic monopoly. Some of these “patents” were for already existing things, to give the grantee a monopoly over the sale of a particular common item. In addition, patents as we understand them today as a form of intellectual property didn’t coalesce till mid to late 1800s.

You can delude yourself anyway you want by reinterpreting things you don't like.

When the US was behind on IP, its respect for IP was irrelevant to the US's economy because most IP holders were European and thus respecting IP mostly just benefited Europe.

When the US is ahead on IP, it's respect for IP is incredibly relevant to the US's economy because respecting IP mostly benefits the US.

200 years ago?

It's all over the place, depending on the industry. I mean Hollywood's rise was also due to IP theft, things only became the way they are now in the 1950s.

https://penntoday.upenn.edu/2012-05-10/research/bumpy-histor...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com