this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
107 points (88.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43965 readers
1934 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Don't detail exactly what the innovation is before its ready to sell, it takes time to get something into a product and to get that product into production. Name recognition is everything, for some time the small starup is the name of the innovation, and that recognition does not just vanish. Other companies have built comparable or beter electric cars by now, but you know who im talking about when i say that electric car company.
Alternateivly copy something a large corporation is doing, or better yet, build on something they are doing.
Also employee owned companies tend not to aggressively expand. And governments need to break up the kind of company that is large enough to destroy all competition. That leads me to another opinion, buying another company should not be allowed in a capitalist economy, because that only ever makes the market less free.
I'm unsure why the invention is safe from piracy simply because it was sold - any company can claim they did it first and w.o patents, or at the very least something else documented contemporaneously, how does the original inventor prove their claim?
Second, I can imagine innovators being uncomfortable having to withhold their contributions/knowledge in order to profit - surely that's the primary benefit of the patent system? i.e., a way where the information is provided to the public while protecting their ability to say the inventor is the one who discovered that information. Simply put, without patents, no innovation is allowed except to the extent the discoverer wants to share their information with the public.
Imo, you touched on a really important point in your third paragraph - there is no reason (aside from cost) that ONLY the employer should realize the benefit of the patent. Imo, an employEE (not employer) should be the owner of the knowledge - but then how does any single employee pay the large fees required to defend their patent in court or through licenses
Ahh I see - its fine as long as you only steal from someone larger than you - I'm sure those larger corps (known for their altruism right?) wont steal ideas from the little guys... (this goes back to my initial point, how to protect the little guy?)
I agree - in Canada (which is merely the jurisdiction I happen to be familiar with), the law is written such that "an act engaged in pursuant only to the exercise of any right or enjoyment of any interest derived under the . . . Patent Act . . . is not an anti- competitive act" In other words, to be anti-competitive requires conduct beyond simply 'using' your IP rights, such that an "abuse of a dominant position" is required.
I'm unsure what this would mean for owners who are reaching the end of their life (I'm presuming you think corporations should outlive their founders, since that is one of the main advantages for registering a corporation as opposed to a sole-proprietorship or partnership entity).