←back to thread

167 points thisismytest | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
ixaxaar ◴[] No.42162021[source]
What a sad fucking world. I like what China does in the regard to patents. That is exactly what patents deserve.
replies(4): >>42162150 #>>42162389 #>>42163357 #>>42164305 #
levocardia ◴[] No.42162150[source]
...steal them from the Americans?
replies(6): >>42162157 #>>42162267 #>>42162535 #>>42162618 #>>42162619 #>>42163616 #
immibis ◴[] 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.
replies(3): >>42162170 #>>42162377 #>>42162729 #
1. derektank ◴[] No.42162729[source]
What defines what is and is not "valid" property? The entire concept of property itself only exists because it's a useful fiction. Prehistoric hunter gatherer societies might have had a loose sense of clan ownership over e.g. hunting grounds but the idea that you could parcel up an acre of land and own it would likely have seemed bizarre. Yet today some people spend their entire waking lives tracking who owns what properties
replies(2): >>42162834 #>>42187237 #
2. vincnetas ◴[] No.42162834[source]
lets start that to be stolen, the thing needs to be tangible. and property needs to be a tangible thing. and by stealing, preventing from accessing also counts.
replies(1): >>42165699 #
3. DangitBobby ◴[] No.42165699[source]
No, there's no logical reason for that restriction.
4. kelseyfrog ◴[] No.42187237[source]
> What defines what is and is not "valid" property?

There are several ways to answer this provided it isn't rhetorical.

One approach is to examine how society collectively decides what counts as property. These decisions aren’t neutral or universal — they’re shaped by the power and interests of those who benefit most from them. I hope it's clear that there is a contradiction present between: "property is universal" and those who benefit most from property being true are those with the most property.

Historically, the ruling class has established what counts as “valid” property by embedding their preferences into law and enforcing them through two major systems: ideology and force. You and I are taught to accept these definitions through societal institutions like schools, media, and legal systems. These institutions present ideas like patents or private property as natural or universal truths, making alternative ways of thinking seem unrealistic or unthinkable. For instance, when people say things like, “Patents protect natural rights,” or “Every other system has failed,” they’re reflecting this conditioning — whether or not they personally benefit from it.

The concept of property is enforced through systems of control, like courts, fines, and even imprisonment. If someone challenges the validity of a patent, they stand to face financial penalties or legal repercussions. The idea of “valid” property isn’t just a belief — it’s something actively maintained through both persuasion and coercion.

Ultimately, those who gain the most from these systems (like corporations or wealthy individuals) have the power to shape both the ideas we accept and the rules we follow. They turn their interests into societal norms through a feedback loop of belief and enforcement. The system sustains itself by creating the reality it envisions - "hyperstition" is where our collective belief makes something real.