(www.technologyreview.com)

167 points thisismytest | 5 comments | 17 Nov 24 03:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source

Show context

ixaxaar ◴[17 Nov 24 04:45 UTC] No.42162021[source]▶

What a sad fucking world. I like what China does in the regard to patents. That is exactly what patents deserve.

levocardia ◴[17 Nov 24 05:15 UTC] No.42162150[source]▶

...steal them from the Americans?

immibis ◴[17 Nov 24 05:16 UTC] No.42162157[source]▶

You can't "steal" what wasn't valid property to begin with - even if the law likes to pretend it is valid property.

osigurdson ◴[17 Nov 24 05:21 UTC] No.42162170[source]▶

I don't think the world is a net better place with no IP or copyright laws.

1. portaouflop ◴[17 Nov 24 07:33 UTC] No.42162584[source]▶

We won’t know until we try it out.

2. sam_lowry_ ◴[17 Nov 24 09:32 UTC] No.42163066[source]▶

We do, tangentially. IP laws are enforce differently across the world and across timeperiods, and the differences make for wonderful experiments.

Think of pop music expansion in the Napster era as an example.

replies(1): >>42163219 #

3. jajko ◴[17 Nov 24 10:15 UTC] No.42163219[source]▶

Yet successful pop artists are drowning in money.

I have really hard time having sympathy with massively multi-millionaires like Metallica bashing people ripping their stuff.

Even in countries with stronger IP, unknown artists are struggling. So restrictions are hardly an efficient solution

4. pxmpxm ◴[17 Nov 24 13:28 UTC] No.42164096[source]▶

Public ownership of capital assets has been tried, and tried, and tried... with the same results.

You can pretend to ignore the idea originally coined by Aristotle, but you can't will it into reality.

replies(1): >>42167655 #

5. thayne ◴[17 Nov 24 21:54 UTC] No.42167655[source]▶

There is a huge difference between all capital assets being public, and not considering ideas to be a capital asset.

Two Nobel Prize winners want to cancel their own CRISPR patents in Europe