March 9, 2009 at 15:10Idea or implementation. What is more important?
The bulk 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 on the grounds that they (ideas) can appear in the head of anyone (and therefore cost nothing), and most importantly - the implementation of the idea. For this reason, advocates of intellectual property are anathema, who are scornfully stigmatized by the word "copyrights". There are even such "fundamentalists" who (judging by their angry comments) are ready to blow up patent offices and burn the owners of "intellectual property" at the stake as heretics inhibiting progress.
Where does this hatred come from? The bulk of the "Habralyud" is programmers, admins, etc. And to understand the causes of hatred, you can use the metaphor. All these professions, in fact, are workers of the XXI century. The same workers as the assembler on the assembly line or workshop in XX. If you compare, for example, what looks like, for example, a workshop of a garment factory and offices with cages or without, it's hard not to notice the similarities. Any employee is just as easily replaced, because there is a whole queue at the gate (there is a stack of resumes in the personnel department). And these hard workers are not unreasonably sure that the whole company is holding on to their hump, and all the rest are unproductive forces that parasitize on them (and, accordingly, are class enemies). Desires are similar: “cancel patent and copyright” identical to the slogans “take and divide”, “robbed loot”, etc.
Why is the similarity of thinking? It’s just that the workers of the 21st century, like the 20th, work “hands”. Of course, one can argue, they say, everyone has hands, but there are very few good programmers. ... But there are also few good seamstresses. Whatever they say about creativity in programming and system administration is a chore.
Without the abominable “intellectual property”, the more efficient will survive (and, translating into human language, the one who will exploit workers with minimal costs). Given the overpopulation of workers' land, there will always be plenty of work "for food". How much innovation (I mean the last 100 years) came to us from China where the economy works on this principle? It works and grows, increasing the range of goods, while there is something to copy. And if you block the flow of new information (ideas), how long will it take to wait for something innovative from there?
Therefore, the abolition of patent and copyright is a utopia that will not lead to anything good. It is also worth noting the fundamental difference between copyright and patent law. For copyright infringement, not so much the “organizers of theft” are persecuted as end users - individuals. While for patent infringement, corporations are attracted that earn a lot of money and also register a lot of patents in order to establish their own monopoly.
Reasonable:
Limit the possible claims for compensation for patent infringement (some kind of universal calculation formula is possible);
Non-prosecution of copyright infringement of individuals (if they have not used it for commercial purposes).
The cessation of the oppression of people claiming ownership of some ideas. After all, without them, you will be doomed to stamp facebook clones until the end of days.
Further I will publish graphomanian discussions on the relevance of the term “intellectual property” and the degree of underdevelopment of investors.
PS Before setting - ask a question: "what is written here does not correspond to reality or did it just offend me?"