Few words about intellectual property and common sense
I am very glad that my previous article was relevant and interesting. Today I want to touch on the topic of intellectual property.
Intellectual Property Protection Methods:
We have many talented people at the university who register 3-5 patents per year. It's a lot. I thought (well, and now often I think so) that, basically, these are all fake papers in order to have something to measure in academic circles. But somehow they told me the following story: one professor received a patent for the invention of something there, and then after 2 or 3 years, when the patent expired, did not want to renew it, because there’s zero, and you have to pay for the extension . What a surprise he had when he learned that in a few months one Russian plant had introduced his invention in his workplace, of course, without paying him anything to the author!
')
The next example is you are a graduate student, doctoral candidate (underline the necessary), write a scientific work (I will not discuss the reasons). Of course, you need to do public reports, write articles, conduct research. Writing work lasts for several years. A few years before your defense, your idea will have time to implement and improve several times. Accordingly, when you go to the defense and they ask you why you are talking about it, because everyone already knows about it, you show scientific articles, patents and dates on them and thereby confirm your level of qualification.
The third example (banal and the most common) is to make money. And no matter how many times they talk about free software, world peace - the world is ruled by green notes. By the way, for many educated people the sale of copyrights and patents is the only way to earn a decent life.
Small companies (we call these firms startups) are very hard to compete with the whales of the industry, so for many a patent is an opportunity to sell out. Without an intellectual property system, such options would not be possible.
Another example. One well-known US company outsourcing to Kiev is a project related to trading on the stock exchange. The developers used in some strange purposes the ancient development of another little-known company, which somehow found out about it. The result is a lawsuit against an American company that, in order to avoid a scandal, simply “unfastened” a few lemons. Right or wrong - the question is complicated, but I don’t think that someone wanted someone to earn millions on your development for you .
And now about common sense. Our need to obtain patents is dictated “from above”, which naturally leads to a decrease in the quality of the latter. Somewhere I was told that by the number of patents per capita we have one of the best in the world. And someone is proud of these tsiferkami ...
Common sense is absent in such a concept as “auto-plagiarism” - this is when you steal from yourself! Those. in your work you use your own material (oh, as IE with opera reminds), but without first citing it. Patenting emoticons, placing buttons, etc. also can not serve as a standard of common sense. Although, again, I do not think that there are idiots "there" who have nothing to do.
Now the rhetorical question is: why as soon as someone has someone who has something (MS design from a startup, VKontakte from Facebook, design from “Thematic Media”, Lebedev's outlet, someone did not indicate the copyright of the original author of the open source program without what kind of license, requests to search giants about algorithms for finding plagiarism - offhand, that I can remember on Habré for the last month or two) - this causes tons of indignation, but it costs for someone (the same Google, Apple or Microsoft) to get a patent for Is something - does it cause so many rays of hate? I repeat once again - this is a rhetorical question ...
Thus, as a conclusion: the system of protection of intellectual property is not needed for those who do not have it (intellectual property). Otherwise the question would be necessary or not necessary.
Who cares a few tsiferok:Thank you for your attention and be tolerant of intellectual property rights. Maybe sometime you will find yourself on the other side of the barricades.
Intellectual Property Protection Methods:
- In scientific articles publish the results of research, new methods, algorithms, approaches, schemes. Publication of a scientific article does not guarantee the protection of rights to the content, but is an important point for its recognition;
- A patent is obtained for an invention, scheme, device, model. A patent is a guarantee of respect for your intellectual rights;
- A certificate for a software product is obtained to confirm its authorship for a certain developed program (most often, the name of this program is reserved for itself);
- evidence for the algorithm - everything seems to be clear here.
We have many talented people at the university who register 3-5 patents per year. It's a lot. I thought (well, and now often I think so) that, basically, these are all fake papers in order to have something to measure in academic circles. But somehow they told me the following story: one professor received a patent for the invention of something there, and then after 2 or 3 years, when the patent expired, did not want to renew it, because there’s zero, and you have to pay for the extension . What a surprise he had when he learned that in a few months one Russian plant had introduced his invention in his workplace, of course, without paying him anything to the author!
')
The next example is you are a graduate student, doctoral candidate (underline the necessary), write a scientific work (I will not discuss the reasons). Of course, you need to do public reports, write articles, conduct research. Writing work lasts for several years. A few years before your defense, your idea will have time to implement and improve several times. Accordingly, when you go to the defense and they ask you why you are talking about it, because everyone already knows about it, you show scientific articles, patents and dates on them and thereby confirm your level of qualification.
The third example (banal and the most common) is to make money. And no matter how many times they talk about free software, world peace - the world is ruled by green notes. By the way, for many educated people the sale of copyrights and patents is the only way to earn a decent life.
Small companies (we call these firms startups) are very hard to compete with the whales of the industry, so for many a patent is an opportunity to sell out. Without an intellectual property system, such options would not be possible.
Another example. One well-known US company outsourcing to Kiev is a project related to trading on the stock exchange. The developers used in some strange purposes the ancient development of another little-known company, which somehow found out about it. The result is a lawsuit against an American company that, in order to avoid a scandal, simply “unfastened” a few lemons. Right or wrong - the question is complicated, but I don’t think that someone wanted someone to earn millions on your development for you .
And now about common sense. Our need to obtain patents is dictated “from above”, which naturally leads to a decrease in the quality of the latter. Somewhere I was told that by the number of patents per capita we have one of the best in the world. And someone is proud of these tsiferkami ...
Common sense is absent in such a concept as “auto-plagiarism” - this is when you steal from yourself! Those. in your work you use your own material (oh, as IE with opera reminds), but without first citing it. Patenting emoticons, placing buttons, etc. also can not serve as a standard of common sense. Although, again, I do not think that there are idiots "there" who have nothing to do.
Now the rhetorical question is: why as soon as someone has someone who has something (MS design from a startup, VKontakte from Facebook, design from “Thematic Media”, Lebedev's outlet, someone did not indicate the copyright of the original author of the open source program without what kind of license, requests to search giants about algorithms for finding plagiarism - offhand, that I can remember on Habré for the last month or two) - this causes tons of indignation, but it costs for someone (the same Google, Apple or Microsoft) to get a patent for Is something - does it cause so many rays of hate? I repeat once again - this is a rhetorical question ...
Thus, as a conclusion: the system of protection of intellectual property is not needed for those who do not have it (intellectual property). Otherwise the question would be necessary or not necessary.
Who cares a few tsiferok:Thank you for your attention and be tolerant of intellectual property rights. Maybe sometime you will find yourself on the other side of the barricades.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/86138/
All Articles