It’s insane that some people take it seriously for more than 5 seconds.
No, I haven’t. Stop thinking you’re entitled to other people’s money before they actually give it to you. You do not own your “future profits” (or in this case, “profits from an alternate timeline that never happened”), as they do not exist in the present. You do not own your customers, they are free to look for a better service and better product elsewhere.
Patents are fundamentally important to protect the investments in research and product development. No pharmaceutical company will ever invest billions into research again if they are not allowed to protect the results of their research with a patent.
2 Likes
So they should learn how to keep a trade secret. 
No, they share the information about their research, and then threaten you with violence if you use this information. Patents are threat of violence against anyone who dares to compete in a free market. They are the worst form of monopolies.
And saying “nobody would invest in research if they weren’t given a monopoly on the results of that research” is about as narrow-sighted as saying “nobody would write software if they had to share the source code”.
Ironic, coming from someone using Linux who has benefited tremendously from the investment of people who share their knowledge and code and build upon each other’s achievements.
4 Likes
Oh no @Kresimir is on a roll! 
1 Like
Nobody is threatened with violence. That is a bit too much of a drama.
Anyways, I will step out of this discussion.
What? Do you even know what a law is? Every law is backed up by violence. Just try to break it and see what happens.
Some laws are just, some are unjust, but every one of them boils down to: “obey or we will hurt you”.
Patents wouldn’t be a problem at all if they weren’t codified in law.
1 Like
Hold on sir, your logic is not universal here!
You see, it’s valid, unless you’re part of the government or a president - then you’ll laugh, shrug it off and continue to break it for everyone to see.
1 Like
Creators should be able to protect their creations from being claimed by someone else. I also think it’s appropriate that they get to decide what level of protection they want or need.
.
Where I have a problem is the copyright or patent of non-tangible concept without any created work implementing said concept. I also have issue with patents applied to “trivial” inventions. By that, I mean the kind of obvious solution that could reasonably be expected to be implemented by anyone for a given situation. Patent lawyers can certainly muddy what “reasonable” means.
.
In short, I want the guy who “creates” a practical flying car to get the patent without owing a royalty to the guy who patented the “idea” of a practical flying car.
1 Like
I just want a flying car. 
1 Like
No they shouldn’t.
The users should be told the truth about the origin of the product they use. Plagiarising a book is not a crime towards the true author (it doesn’t affect the author’s property in any way), but towards the reader who is being lied to about the author.
2 Likes
Yes, they should.
“plagiarism” is claiming someone else’s idea as their own and absolutely impacts the originator.
1 Like
In what way?
Where does this stuff come from?
It’s basic common sense.
Imaginary … 
Plagiarism might be a real d*ck move, and in a lot of cases considered rightfully so by society (say in music), but considering it as breaking the law is laughable.
There are sub-cultures and even cultures where plagiarism is considered more like an inspiration and a sign of appreciation and deep respect for original work…blues music for instance.
One can even argue that culture and art is a system of long-term plagiarism 
3 Likes