Looking up those patents, the first alludes to a system where a player aims and fires an “item” toward a character in a field, and in doing so triggers combat, and then dives into extraordinary intricacies about switching between modes within this. The second is very similar, but seems more directly focused on tweaking previous patents to including being able to capture Pokémon in the wild, rather than only during battle. The third, rather wildly, seems to be trying to claim a modification to the invention of riding creatures in an open world and being able to transition between them easily.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] partial_accumen 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

A shitty solution for a shitty situation is not a good solution

Feel free to share your revolutionary idea that will still incentivize people to create without creating a "shitty situation".

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I don't need to come up with any revolutionary ideas, the open source folks are already creating without patenting their creations

Here's a revolutionary idea: universal basic income. No need to prevent other people from monetizing your idea if you don't need to monetize your idea in the first place

[–] partial_accumen 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don’t need to come up with any revolutionary ideas, the open source folks are already creating without patenting their creations

The largest contributors to Open Source make their money from patents and other IP. As in, they can afford to give away lots of time and effort because they make their money with IP. If IP were to be eradicated as you're proposing, all those contributions to Open Source by those largest contributors would evaporate. Here's the largest Open Source contributors from 2017-2020.

source

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

The largest contributors to Open Source make their money from patents and other IP.

The data in that video is (probably) accurate but your statement is completely wrong: In that list only Intel makes anything but trivial amounts of money from patents. In fact, Microsoft, Google, and Docker have famously lost shittons of money thanks to patents. They basically siphoned money out of those companies into the pockets of lawyers and provided absolutely no benefit to society.

For fuck's sake: Features were removed from Android because of software patents!

Not only that but Google makes almost all of its money from advertising, not "IP". Same for Meta which is oddly missing from the graph (even though they contribute to and maintain a ton of FOSS stuff).

Then let's talk about #1: Redhat. They absolutely would be 1000% behind banning software patents. It's nothing but trouble for them.

I'd also like to note that Microsoft has been very much in favor of software patents since they were invented by the courts (remember: no legislation added software as a category of patentable subject matter: They exist as a result of court rulings!) because they thought they would put an end to open source software (see: Halloween documents). However, software patents have actually cost Microsoft more than they ever helped the company! In short: They're idiots. They opened a can of worms that's kept them constantly under attack but because those worms also hurt their perceived enemies they've doubled down on their decision.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 weeks ago

Software existed for decades without (software) patents and has innovated and evolved vastly more quickly than any other science. Then we created software patents and things actually started to slow down (because lawsuits take time and threaten to end great software before it even exists).

Software is already covered by copyright which is all that was necessary for some of the richest companies in the world to come into existence (e.g. Microsoft, Oracle). Software patents shouldn't exist!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

✨ anarchism✨ sorry, you said revolutionary 😎 /hj