this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
817 points (99.0% liked)
Greentext
8251 readers
849 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I disagree, if I spend time and money to figure out how to solve a problem efficiently, why shouldn't I get to profit from that idea?
The above only applies to hardware patents, software patents however should not extist.
Regardless, if a company are not actively using a patent, as in a product themselves or through licensing, for X years, then the patent should be void.
Of course it's work finding solutions to problems and you should be able to live off your work. And in capitalism, a patent sometimes is the only option to do so.
However, patents and other forms of "intellectual property" are absolutely illogical and amoral. Nobody ever made a completely new thing. Every innovation builds on so much knowledge accumulated by so many people that came before. It's absolutely nonsensical that an advancement that's 99 % an achievement of humanity and 1 % of a single person should belong to that single person.
The solution to this is supposed to be the time limit: if your invention builds on a very recent invention, you may have to get permission from that inventor, but older inventions become common property and can be freely built upon. If that time limit gets too long, which it absolutely has, then that can end up causing more harm than good.
I disagree, patents makes sense for normal citizens, it gives them a legal framework to fight against a company just taking the invention from them without compensation.
As for the 99% vs 1% contribution, remember that it is usually the last 1% of a project that consumes the most time.
Except 99% of the time, the company bankrupts the person who invented it (or threatens to) and then buys it out from under them through financial coersion and then make millions or billions in profit while giving the person who spent years or decades of effort developing it less than 1% of its worth.
That's a weak argument because everything used by normal citizens is, in practice, always used by the big corpos against the normal citizens in much greater quantity and with much more force.
Now that I think of it, it's no argument at all because I already admitted, that under capitalism, you might not have another choice to get paid for your work. That still doesn't make it morally good or logically sound.
Normal citizens!? The cost of patent litigation can range from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000 on average per side.
I am sorry, but I have yet to meet a normal citizen that can afford a cost like this.
I find it interesting that you draw the line at software, as if it doesn’t require time and money to create software solutions.
If it matters, I’m of the opinion that patents shouldn’t exist period. Capitalism loves to brag about encouraging competition and how much it benefits consumers, when in reality patents are super anticompetitive. An idea is one thing, executing the idea well is another. If I “take” your idea and execute it better than you, there shouldn’t be legislation stopping me
THANK YOU. Exactly. Competition is supposed to decide who wins, not the state. If your invention is genuinely great, you should dominate because you innovate faster, manufacture better, support customers better, reduce costs better, and improve continuously, not because the government threatens competitors for 20 years.
Imagine you are an inventor and come up with a brilliant new thing, and start a business to sell it. You even bring in people to help manufacture and make them a co-op. Doing everything ethically right. Selling a quality product that people want.
Then a multinational conglomerate sees it is selling well and they use their immense resources to scale up production, produce and sell it for half the price you can.
You and your co-op go out of business and megacorps shareholders pocket even more dividends.
Thats why patents should exist in a capitalist hellscape.
That argument proves the problem is scale and market power, not lack of patents.
Giving everyone a legal weapon sounds fair in theory, but in practice the biggest companies have the best lawyers, the biggest patent portfolios, and the most money to litigate. Patents often become a moat for incumbents, not a shield for small inventors.
A pro-market answer would be: reduce barriers to entry, punish fraud, enforce contracts, maybe protect trade secrets narrowly, but don’t ban competitors from building better versions.
I still think the patents need limitations.
1 year limit if not actively being used for a product in production.
10yr total limit.
Something like a video game mechanic should be limited to 2 years from first use.
Patents should be a limited way to protect and support innovation. Patent hoarding needs to be stopped.
Drug patents should have same limitations unless its something the government deems too critical, and then the company should be reimbursed for their research costs and the patent killed.
Your proposal is definitely less bad than the current system, but it still assumes innovation needs a government referee deciding who gets exclusivity, for how long, and when taxpayers should compensate private research.
That’s the part I can’t get behind.
If the product is not commercially viable without monopoly protection or public reimbursement, maybe the business model is the issue. And if the government reimburses the company, that just means society absorbs the risk while the company keeps the upside.
Who decides the reimbursement amount? Who pays for failed research? Taxpayers? Competing companies? Consumers?
Private companies should be rewarded by the market when they create value, not guaranteed protection from competition and then reimbursed when the state decides the invention is important.
Shorter patents reduce the damage, but they don’t remove the contradiction: a “limited monopoly” is still a monopoly.
Why should you exclusively get to profit from that idea? In any case all innovation stands on the shoulders of giants supported by society at large. The idea of owning an idea in the first place is absurd, but setting that aside if someone will assert exclusive rights to an idea they should first repay society for all its indirect contributions to that idea, from past innovators to the workers whose labor makes it all possible. Or course this is impossible, meaning owning an idea automatically becomes absurd. And this is before we get to how pretty much all parents are based on publicly funded research. Government-granted monopolies should stay in the 19th century.
Because it is not really the idea specifically that you patent, you patent a method of making an idea work.
Potato potato, the point still stands: It's impossible to come up with a new, say, car engine design without centuries' worth of thermodynamics and assorted physics, millennia's worth of metallurgy and the labor of hundreds if not thousands of people providing the food, water, electricity, manufactured goods, etc to make the act of innovation possible, and all those people have a claim to a piece of the pie.
You don't patent the thermodynamics, or even the concept of a car engine. You would patent the specific schematics, which, if you engineered in an original way, then you should own the rights to it for a period of time.
Everyone who labored to provide food, housing, utilities, etc. while you worked on it already got their piece of the pie when they accepted the wages they agreed to work for or the price they set for the goods. (The unfairness of wage labor is a separate issue to be addressed separately; it has nothing to do with IP laws, and it's the employers who are on the hook to compensate them more fairly, not the end consumer).
Anything else and suddenly you owe every grocer, farmer, and fieldworker a royalty for every dollar you make at your job; which you can clearly see is a foolish idea. You buy the fucking food and you eat it; it's yours, and whatever you decide to do with the energy it provides is no business of the people you bought it from.
That honestly makes patents even less justifiable.
You’re not protecting a finished product or a brand reputation, you’re protecting a method, meaning you’re legally blocking alternative implementations around a problem space.
That’s exactly the kind of artificial restriction that slows competition and incremental innovation.
Patents are supposed to be pretty specific and open to alternative implementations that don't infringe, but the USPTO has made some pretty awful decisions, especially around early home computers.
That’s kind of my point.
If a system keeps getting abused to grant monopolies on absurdly broad concepts, maybe the problem isn’t just bad decisions, maybe the incentives themselves are broken.
And in practice, litigation costs alone already scare away competitors long before courts decide anything.
I'd call that a failure of capitalism, not of patents specifically. Any system stops working if you change the rules enough, and it was capitalism that allowed those rule changes.
It's a bandaid fix though. Abolishing capitalism so that we could focus on innovation without needing to monetise it in order to eat is a better idea.
Software patents don't exist in the real world. It's just those dumb Americans living in their fantasy world who do it. Dumb fucks
I’m not anti-profit. I’m anti state-granted monopoly.
If you invented it first, you already have advantages: expertise, brand, speed, know-how, first-mover position, customer trust. Profit should come from executing better, not from getting the state to forbid competitors from improving on your idea.
Patents are not capitalism; they are government-enforced market exclusion.
Without patent protection it would be impossible to bring anything new on the market unless you were allready one of the big companies.
Expertise, brand, speed, know-how, first-mover position, customer trust etc. are wothless if multinational mega conglomerate can just copy your homework and use their wealth to quickly massproduce your thing and spread it to every market of the world.