Comment by survirtual
4 months ago
It is not complicated. Patents are regressive instruments of the rich to shackle minds and generate artificial scarcity over abundant goods.
It is a mechanism of slavers and connected lineages, and completely puts of a boot on the neck of unconnected innovators, which are abundant in today's age.
They must be abolished.
I’m not following the “unconnected” part. There are definitely problems with our patent system (referring to US), especially around software, but in my experience examiners are indifferent to your background and lineage (though not indifferent to their own status at USPTO). There is absolutely a monetary barrier to entry on using a lawyer to draft your patent application, but I feel like that’s more an issue of private law firms than patents in general. Though I’m sure others might have comments on how those intertwine.
But filing fees, etc (ie those things set by the USPTO) are really quite reasonable imo. Strictly speaking you don’t have to use a lawyer to file (I know that can be a minor concession in the landscape of practical success). Maybe you can clarify what you mean by “connected” vs “unconnected”in this case? I’m missing how patent law directly related to connections/lineage beyond what sister comments have said re: ability to litigate or be patent trolls. But I think that’s the point of the sister comment on it (at least ideally) cutting both ways.
There are explicit and implicit aspects of connectivity.
Explicit are things like racism, lineage requirements (like Ivy leagues asking if you have family that attended), etc.
Implicit are things like growing up in poverty and not having the knowledge, access to mentors, or access to the money to secure ideas.
The rich and connected have access to everything to buy and secure ideas. They can even buy people and take their ideas for themselves without proper compensation, because generally, creators are not negotiators.
It is a rigged system that empowers slavers.
People in poverty, for example, expend significantly more energy to develop a creative mindset, and have little to no energy for negotiation and navigating legal frameworks. So because of this, they relinquish that power to abusers who benefit for their relative disability.
I could write a book about this but if you think it through, it is clear. You could also paste my comment into AI and have a discussion about it.
So if you invent something you’re cool with a giant company just stealing it and marketing it?
In the current system if a giant company just steals something, will you be able to last through years of legal proceedings while they're the ones reaping the profits?
Willful patent infringement provides for treble damages based on damages that are often determinable from the infringer’s sales/profits and provides for recoupment of attorney’s fees. If you have a truly patentable idea then the juice of attorneys fees is often worth the risk-adjusted squeeze of litigation.
But that happens anyway. Patent litigation is expensive and time consuming and is far more often used to punch down, regardless of merits.
The fairy tale of the solo patent holder fighting off giant mega corporations is worthy of a Hallmark movie and just as realistic.