Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Square (now Block), sparked a weekend’s worth of debate around intellectual property, patents, and copyright, with a characteristically terse post declaring, “delete all IP law.”

X’s current owner Elon Musk quickly replied, “I agree.”

  • Atropos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’ll affect it, but it won’t stop it. This is a good question to bring up though.

    I design medical devices. IP is incredibly important in this process to protect our R&D investment in the current system. If IP didn’t exist, we’d protect that through other means like obfuscation of function.

    Also if IP didn’t exist, I could design devices that are so much better at healing people. So much of what I do is restricted because someone else has 30 years left on what they patented.

    R&D is expensive. Just because you see what someone else did, doesn’t mean you can easily replicate it.

    In short: if your goal is pure profit, yeah removing IP probably hurts this a little. If your goal is producing the best product, then get rid of it.

    I think the best solution would be a much shorter exclusionary period for patents.

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      2 days ago

      Obfuscating how things work and trade secrets mean some knowledge is never shared. The ideal behind the patent system is that information is made public but protected for a limited time. The system has strayed from the ideal, but there is still a need for it.

      Patents in the US and most countries expire 20 years after filing or 17 years after issuing. It’s not 30 years.

    • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Cory Doctorow has made a pretty convincing argument that in your real specifically, all designs should be open source. That way, if a company goes bankrupt or simply stops supporting a device, like (say) an implant that allows them to see, or a pacemaker, or whatever, they can pursue repairs without the help of the OEM.

      • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Open source is effectively no different than public domain in this circumstance. You don’t have less rights

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      So much of what I do is restricted because someone else has 30 years left on what they patented.

      If they didn’t patent it, that technology never would have existed in the first place for you to steal from.

      I think the best solution would be a much shorter exclusionary period for patents.

      100% agreed on that account.

      In short: if your goal is pure profit, yeah removing IP probably hurts this a little

      “A little”? If there’s no IP you just pay a janitor or an employee a million bucks to send you all the information and documentation and you manufacture the product yourself and undercut the company actually engineering the product so they can never be profitable.

      Like, this all seems very obvious to me…

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        People made stuff before patents existed. In many cases there were certain people and groups that were sought out because they simply did things better than others who made the same things.

        Knowing how someone else makes something doesn’t mean you can make it as well as the other person. Making quality goods is the same as cooking meals, the people and techniques are far more important than the designs.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          That was fine before mass production made perfect copies possible on an industrial scale.

          You don’t need the person when you can copy the object and produce it at volume and scale because you already own the factories.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Mass production copies are far from perfect. Like the dollar store version of anything is shit tier even if it looks the same. I’m not talking snobby high end or anything, just well made vs trash tier.

            Hell, most of the goods we buy are made by a factory contracted with the person who designed and distributes the materials. That was true before we moved manufacturing overseas too. Cars were one of the few factories that were owned and operated by the companies that design and distribute the goods.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          People made stuff before patents existed.

          People also didn’t make stuff before patents existed. That’s why they exist.

          Knowing how someone else makes something doesn’t mean you can make it as well as the other person.

          Not necessarily, but often you can. You also don’t have to, you just have to make it cheaper, which you can because you are benefitting from someone else’s investment.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            People also didn’t make stuff before patents existed. That’s why they exist.

            What didn’t they make?

            Not necessarily, but often you can. You also don’t have to, you just have to make it cheaper, which you can because you are benefitting from someone else’s investment.

            How many restaurants make fries? How many companies make a drink called cola? Are they all identical?

            Why do they keep making making those prodicts when they aren’t covered by patents?

              • snooggums@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                So you are assuming they didn’t make them for reasons that didn’t exist at the time.

                Ok.

                • Ulrich@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  No. I’m assuming that they didn’t make them based on simple and rational thought processes that I’ve already outlined several times.

                  Does the fact that the richest billionaires in the world all want to get rid of them not concern you at all?

                  • snooggums@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    I assume that the way that Dorsey and Musk want to ‘get rid of them’ means for everyone else and will be terrible.

                    But that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that before patents and copyright people made all kinds of things and had zero reason to not make something just because someone else cpuld too. That is a made up theory of yours that has no basis in reality.