why patents are evil. no questions.

    For one simple reason: patents are a means of unfair competition and the killing of intellectual potential. I’ll explain ... However, as always there will be porridge from thoughts, but, I hope, at least someone will understand me.

    What is needed for normal competition? Vasya Pupkin makes bikes, and Pup Vaskin also makes bikes. In order for them to continue to be able to make bicycles, they must offer solutions that are increasingly less expensive to manufacture and with ever higher consumer qualities. This is the essence of competition. And it doesn’t matter which of them that intellectually steals from each other. Okay, it is possible to steal badly, but the court protects against theft, while the patent protects the lazy inventor from his aggressive competitors.

    If Pup Vaskin patented a special nut, then Vasya will no longer be able to freely use not just the exact same nut, but very similar to it, of his own invention. Anyway, even if the nut is exactly the same, then who said that he stole the idea? Who said that he himself did not invent it, spending sleepless nights at a drawing board? Patent law is based on a presumption of guilt.

    Not. In theory, of course, everything is in the openwork - Vasya had to first go and conduct a patent research before starting the invention of the nut. But when there are already millions of patents, how can he do this? Patent Agencies? They are also not omnipotent. Agencies cannot find a normal apartment, but here a whole patent, which will also be written not so that they say a nut is patented, but so that a product with a thread is patented, to press the adapter strip to the frame.

    He cannot make the same nut, although he knows a way to make it 100 times faster and 1000 times more efficient. That is, it can give consumers a more efficient bicycle and can develop bicycle production technologies for the benefit of society. But he cannot do it.

    Although, hypothetically, he may buy a patent, but who said that Pup would sell the patent to him? Who said that Pupa, another multinational trans-hypermega-corporation producing nuts, will not offer millions of times more with just one purpose - to put a patent on the table and produce ancient rotten nuts using rotten technologies in order to maximize profits?

    And in general, it seems, there is nothing bad here, everyone cares about their well-being. But a patent is a means of caring for one’s well-being at the expense of the well-being of others. And raise the bar for entry into any business. The rich get richer, as always.

    So.

    1. A patent restricts the freedom of an inventor; restrictions on freedom are not bad. But in this case, the restriction is not associated with the malicious intent of the inventor.

    2. Patents kill freedom of competition, because competitors cannot do the same thing, increasing the production efficiency of this same one, both in the name of universal progress and for the benefit of consumers. Even if they do it exactly the same, then there is nothing wrong with that, because each of them does it a little, but in his own way, and sees in different ways the processes taking place in production, perhaps this will lead to another discovery .

    Also, who benefits from a patent? Well ... Besides multinationals? Pope? So what happens to the navel? He patented the nut and began living on patent fees. He no longer has an incentive to invent something new. It is unlikely that Private Pupa has such increased creativity that all the temptations of the world around him will not hook him and will not lead him off the path of invention. The stimulus disappears to improve. As a result, Pupa is old, sick, rich, but hopelessly behind the progress, which he cannot even prepare for his shift. Is this good for the Tao that was flowing in this world in the form of the navel?

    Actually, at present there is no incentive to invent not only with Pupa, but also with the general public. You’ll invent, but it’s already hoped and patented. Or you invent, hop, and it is ahead of you that some Microsoft is already patenting in the dirtiest way. For money, resources and corruption. The rich get richer.

    At the same time, there is nothing wrong with the reinvention of the existing, and progress is very possible through this reinvention. Because there will be no absolute copy. Well, and as I wrote, the reinventor has its own view of life. And he can make an invention according to the most high-tech high-tech.

    Patent advocates will say: what about it, what about it !? How to protect the inventor from the machinations of spies, thieves, and other bad people. So very simple ... Ems. No way. What for?

    1. If this is an active person, then he will have a huge advantage over those who slow down and have not thought of a nut yet. He will be able to release bicycles using new technology, sell, earn grandmothers and invent something new, while competitors just copy his idea. And copying is not so simple, because you need to not only see the nut itself, but also figure out how to make this nut. And for this it’s not enough to see the machine making it, you need to understand how the machine works. He already has a huge competitive advantage, why should he give one more, while completely destructive in relation to other people?

    2. If a person is passive, and the non-ally is completely not at all, then let him build his business correctly. What prevents him from demonstrating his inventions and saying that he provides inventive services? I personally know a person who makes money this way with bread with a thick layer of butter and jam on top, despite the fact that his acquaintances, patent holders, live in obscurity.

    At the same time, nothing prevents two different people from inventing the same thing. In the end, the fact of theft is easy to prove - you just need to check how well a person answers questions why? about his invention. Any examiner will tell you about this. A student answering flags or cheat sheets is transparent, like distilled water.

    And in the end, we are not opposed to the fact that the same boards are produced by different companies. Why should inventions be different? Invention technologies can also be developed through competition.

    And that’s all. What other options could there be? Unless in the second case there are many ways how to receive money for your services. But I’m not ready to share it yet :) Invent yourself. Technology patent free.

    In general, solid cons without pluses. And this I was only concerned with individuals, but imagine what is happening on a national scale? It forces the United States to pass laws that comply with international patent law, and what is the result? Patents in America to hell, even on how to pick out snot from the nose with the little finger of the left foot (and the right, of course, but this is a different patent, so that lawyers have a job). And the country cannot fart even without patent deductions. And where is her intellectual power? In the ass ... However, the Americans probably have a patent for stuffing power into the ass. Should I run and do patent research?

    Also popular now: