The idea or implementation. What is more important?
The majority of those present here (according to my modest observations) are convinced that ideas cannot belong to anyone, they say, they are common and are the property of all mankind on the grounds that they (ideas) can appear in the head of anyone (and therefore do not cost anything) , and most importantly - the implementation of the idea. For this reason, proponents of intellectual property are indulged in, who are contemptuously branded with the word "kopirasty." There are even such "fundamentalists" who (judging by their angry comments) are ready to blow up patent offices and owners of "intellectual property" to burn at the stake as heretics hindering progress.
Where does this hate come from? The bulk of the “habra people” are programmers, administrators, etc. And to understand the causes of hatred, you can apply the metaphor. All of these professions, in fact, are the workers of the XXI century. The same workers as the assembler on the conveyor or workshop in XX. If we compare what it looks like, for example, the workshop of a garment factory and offices with or without bays, it is hard not to notice the similarities. Any employee is also easily replaced, because there is an entire line at the gate (there is a stack of resumes in the personnel department). And these hard workers are reasonably confident that the whole company rests on their backs, and all the rest are non-productive forces that parasitize them (and, accordingly, are class enemies). The desires are similar: “to cancel the patent and copyright law” identical to the slogans “take away and divide”, “rob the loot”, etc.
')
Why such a similarity of thinking? Just the workers of the XXI century, like the XX, work "hands". Of course, you can argue, they say, everyone has hands, but there are very few good programmers. ... But there are not enough good seamstresses either. Whatever they say about creativity in programming and system administration is a chore.
Without godless “intellectual property”, it will survive more efficiently (and translating into human language will be the one who exploits workers with minimal costs). Given the overpopulation of land workers work "for food" will always be enough. How many innovations (I mean the last 100 years) came to us from China where the economy works according to this principle? It works and grows, increasing the range of products, while there is something to copy. And if you block the flow of new information (ideas), how much will you have to wait for something innovative from there?
Therefore, the abolition of patent and copyright is a utopia that does not lead to anything good. It is also worth noting the fundamental difference between copyright and patent law. For infringement of copyright, it is not so much the “theft organizers” who are targeted as end users - individuals. Whereas patent infringement is attracted by corporations that make huge money and also register a lot of patents in order to establish their own monopoly.
Reasonable:
Limit possible claims for compensation for patent infringement (perhaps some kind of universal calculation formula);
Non-liability for copyright infringement of private individuals (if they did not use it for commercial purposes).
Termination of the oppression of people claiming ownership of some ideas. Indeed, without them, you will be doomed to stamp clones of facebook until the end of days.
Next, I will publish graphomaniac reasoning on the relevance of the term “intellectual property” and the degree of underdevelopment of investors.
PS Before you bet, ask yourself the question: “what is written here is not true or did it just offend me?”.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/53921/
All Articles