why patents are evil. no questions.
For one simple reason: patents are the means of unfair competition and the killing of intellectual potential. Let me explain ... However, as always there will be a porridge of thoughts, but, I hope, at least someone will understand me.
For normal competition, what do you need? Vasya Pupkin makes bicycles, and Pup Vaskin also makes bicycles. In order for them to continue to be able to make bicycles, they must offer solutions that are less expensive to produce and with ever higher consumer qualities. This is the essence of competition. And it does not matter which of them, that each other intellectually steals. Ok, maybe stealing is bad, but the court protects against theft, while the patent protects the lazy inventor from his aggressive competitors.
If Navel Vaskin patents a special nut, then Vasya will no longer be able to freely use not that exact same nut, but very similar to it, his own invention. Anyway, even if the nut is exactly the same, then who said that he stole the idea? Who said that he didn’t invent it himself, spending the endless nights behind the drawing board? Patent law is based on the presumption of guilt.
')
Not. In theory, of course, everything is in the openwork - Vasya had to first go and conduct a patent research before starting the invention of the nut. But when there are millions of patents, how can he do that? Patent agencies? They are not all powerful either. An agency cannot find a normal apartment, and here a whole patent, which is also not written in such a way that a nut is patented, and so that a threaded product is patented, to press the transition bar to the frame.
He cannot make the same nut, although he knows a way how to make it 100 times faster and 1000 times more efficient. That is, it can give the consumer a more efficient bicycle and can develop technologies for the production of bicycles for the benefit of society. But he can't do it.
Although, hypothetically, he can buy a patent, but who said that Navel will sell the patent to him? Who said that Pupe is another interethnic transgipermegakorporatsiya producing nuts, will not offer millions of times more only for the sole purpose - to put a patent on the table, and to produce ancient rotten nuts on rotten technology, in order to maximize profits?
And in general, it seems there is nothing bad there, everyone cares about his well-being. But a patent is a means to care for your well-being at the expense of the well-being of others. And to raise the bar of entry into any business. The rich get richer, as always.
So.
1. A patent restricts the freedom of the inventor, restrictions of freedom are not bad. But in this case, the restriction is not connected with the malicious intention of the inventor.
2. Patents kill the freedom of competition, because competitors cannot do the same thing, increasing the production efficiency of this same thing, both for the sake of human progress and for the benefit of consumers. Even if they do it in exactly the same way, then there is nothing bad in it, because each of them does it a little, but in his own way, and sees different processes taking place in production, perhaps, this will lead to the next discovery. .
In addition, to whom is a patent good? Well ... Aside from multinationals? Poope? So what happens to Pupa? He patented a nut and started living on patent fees. He no longer has the incentive to invent something new. It is unlikely that ordinary Pupa has such increased creativity that all the temptations of the world around him will not catch him or lead him away from the path of invention. Stimulus disappears to improve. As a result, Pupa is old, sick, rich, but hopelessly behind the progress, which even a shift cannot prepare for itself. Is this good for the Tao, which proceeded in this world in the form of Pupa?
Actually, there are no incentives to invent at the present time, not only for Pupa, but in general, for the public. You will invent, and it is hop and it is patented already. Or invent, hop, and this forward you in the dirtiest way are already patented by some Microsoft. For grandmothers, resources and corruption. The rich get richer.
At the same time, in the reinvention of the existing there is nothing wrong, and through this very reinvention, progress is even possible. Because the absolute copy will not be. Well, as I wrote, the re-inventor has his own outlook on life. And he can make an invention on the most hi-tech high-tech.
Patent defenders will say: what is it, how !? How to protect the inventor from the machinations of spies, thieves, and other bad people. So very simple ... Ems. No What for?
1. If this is an active person, then he will have a huge advantage in front of those who slow down and have not thought of a nut yet. He will be able to produce bicycles on a new technology, sell, earn money and invent something new, while competitors are just copying his idea. And copying is not so easy, because you need not only to see the nut itself, but also to figure out how to make this nut. And for this, it is not enough to see the machine making it, you need to understand how the machine works. He ALREADY has an enormous competitive advantage, why should he give one more, yet completely destructive to other people?
2. If a person is passive, and a non-entrepreneur is not at all, then let him build his business correctly. What prevents him from demonstrating his inventions and saying that he provides services for inventing? I personally know a man who earns his bread this way with a thick layer of butter and jam on top, despite the fact that his acquaintances, the patent holders, live in obscurity.
At the same time, nothing prevents two different people from inventing the same thing. In the end, the fact of theft is easy enough to prove - you just have to check how well a person answers the questions why? about his invention. Any examiner will tell you about this. The student who is responsible for the flags or cribs is transparent, like distilled water.
And in the end, we do not oppose the fact that the same boards are made by different companies. Why should inventions be any different? Technology inventions can also be developed through competition.
And that's all. What other options can be? Unless in the second case, there are many ways to get money for their services. But I am not ready to share this yet :) invent yourself. Technology patent free.
In general, solid minuses without pluses. And I also concerned only personalities, but imagine what happens on a national scale? Does the United States force anyone to pass laws that international patent law comply with, and what is the result? Patents in America, to hell, even on how to pick out snot from the nose with the fingers of the left leg (and the right one, of course, but this is a different patent, so that lawyers have a job). And the country can not even fart without patent royalties. And where is her intellectual power? In the ass ... However, the Americans probably also have a patent for putting ass power in the ass. Should I run and do patent research?
For normal competition, what do you need? Vasya Pupkin makes bicycles, and Pup Vaskin also makes bicycles. In order for them to continue to be able to make bicycles, they must offer solutions that are less expensive to produce and with ever higher consumer qualities. This is the essence of competition. And it does not matter which of them, that each other intellectually steals. Ok, maybe stealing is bad, but the court protects against theft, while the patent protects the lazy inventor from his aggressive competitors.
If Navel Vaskin patents a special nut, then Vasya will no longer be able to freely use not that exact same nut, but very similar to it, his own invention. Anyway, even if the nut is exactly the same, then who said that he stole the idea? Who said that he didn’t invent it himself, spending the endless nights behind the drawing board? Patent law is based on the presumption of guilt.
')
Not. In theory, of course, everything is in the openwork - Vasya had to first go and conduct a patent research before starting the invention of the nut. But when there are millions of patents, how can he do that? Patent agencies? They are not all powerful either. An agency cannot find a normal apartment, and here a whole patent, which is also not written in such a way that a nut is patented, and so that a threaded product is patented, to press the transition bar to the frame.
He cannot make the same nut, although he knows a way how to make it 100 times faster and 1000 times more efficient. That is, it can give the consumer a more efficient bicycle and can develop technologies for the production of bicycles for the benefit of society. But he can't do it.
Although, hypothetically, he can buy a patent, but who said that Navel will sell the patent to him? Who said that Pupe is another interethnic transgipermegakorporatsiya producing nuts, will not offer millions of times more only for the sole purpose - to put a patent on the table, and to produce ancient rotten nuts on rotten technology, in order to maximize profits?
And in general, it seems there is nothing bad there, everyone cares about his well-being. But a patent is a means to care for your well-being at the expense of the well-being of others. And to raise the bar of entry into any business. The rich get richer, as always.
So.
1. A patent restricts the freedom of the inventor, restrictions of freedom are not bad. But in this case, the restriction is not connected with the malicious intention of the inventor.
2. Patents kill the freedom of competition, because competitors cannot do the same thing, increasing the production efficiency of this same thing, both for the sake of human progress and for the benefit of consumers. Even if they do it in exactly the same way, then there is nothing bad in it, because each of them does it a little, but in his own way, and sees different processes taking place in production, perhaps, this will lead to the next discovery. .
In addition, to whom is a patent good? Well ... Aside from multinationals? Poope? So what happens to Pupa? He patented a nut and started living on patent fees. He no longer has the incentive to invent something new. It is unlikely that ordinary Pupa has such increased creativity that all the temptations of the world around him will not catch him or lead him away from the path of invention. Stimulus disappears to improve. As a result, Pupa is old, sick, rich, but hopelessly behind the progress, which even a shift cannot prepare for itself. Is this good for the Tao, which proceeded in this world in the form of Pupa?
Actually, there are no incentives to invent at the present time, not only for Pupa, but in general, for the public. You will invent, and it is hop and it is patented already. Or invent, hop, and this forward you in the dirtiest way are already patented by some Microsoft. For grandmothers, resources and corruption. The rich get richer.
At the same time, in the reinvention of the existing there is nothing wrong, and through this very reinvention, progress is even possible. Because the absolute copy will not be. Well, as I wrote, the re-inventor has his own outlook on life. And he can make an invention on the most hi-tech high-tech.
Patent defenders will say: what is it, how !? How to protect the inventor from the machinations of spies, thieves, and other bad people. So very simple ... Ems. No What for?
1. If this is an active person, then he will have a huge advantage in front of those who slow down and have not thought of a nut yet. He will be able to produce bicycles on a new technology, sell, earn money and invent something new, while competitors are just copying his idea. And copying is not so easy, because you need not only to see the nut itself, but also to figure out how to make this nut. And for this, it is not enough to see the machine making it, you need to understand how the machine works. He ALREADY has an enormous competitive advantage, why should he give one more, yet completely destructive to other people?
2. If a person is passive, and a non-entrepreneur is not at all, then let him build his business correctly. What prevents him from demonstrating his inventions and saying that he provides services for inventing? I personally know a man who earns his bread this way with a thick layer of butter and jam on top, despite the fact that his acquaintances, the patent holders, live in obscurity.
At the same time, nothing prevents two different people from inventing the same thing. In the end, the fact of theft is easy enough to prove - you just have to check how well a person answers the questions why? about his invention. Any examiner will tell you about this. The student who is responsible for the flags or cribs is transparent, like distilled water.
And in the end, we do not oppose the fact that the same boards are made by different companies. Why should inventions be any different? Technology inventions can also be developed through competition.
And that's all. What other options can be? Unless in the second case, there are many ways to get money for their services. But I am not ready to share this yet :) invent yourself. Technology patent free.
In general, solid minuses without pluses. And I also concerned only personalities, but imagine what happens on a national scale? Does the United States force anyone to pass laws that international patent law comply with, and what is the result? Patents in America, to hell, even on how to pick out snot from the nose with the fingers of the left leg (and the right one, of course, but this is a different patent, so that lawyers have a job). And the country can not even fart without patent royalties. And where is her intellectual power? In the ass ... However, the Americans probably also have a patent for putting ass power in the ass. Should I run and do patent research?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/12200/
All Articles