Why are patents still a thing in 2016?

Why are patents still a thing in 2016?

People like making money for their inventions and don't want others to abuse them.

what alternative to creative protection do you suggest?

literally this - the nose knows

Patent trolls are gay though, but I don't have a proposed solution

>creative protection
Why is this even a thing?
Why should someone hold the exclusive right to assemble a particular arrangement of molecules?

>invent something new and groundbreaking
>not allowed to get compensation from R&D
what is wrong with you?

Because they spent the money to do it.

Because Jews are still a thing in 2016.

>>>
>invent something groundbreaking
>be too incompetent to monetize
>invent patent system

Mate you're making me side with a fucking leaf. How retarded are you?

Google "Taiwanese Rolex".

Because no one would care to invent anything if you can't profit from it you fucking idiot.

Jewish influence on our legal system

Proving my point

Look at China, their free exchange of information causes incredibly quick development of product as technology advances. There is no opportunity for the foreign company to undercut them, so they deliver the best product at the lowest price while keeping jobs in country

because you are a dumb nigger
why dont you think about this for 5 minutes?

To incentivize innovation.

What is so hard to grasp about giving monetary incentive to doing the challenging job of inventing something worthwhile? Frickin moron.

thinks for 5 minutes
I see how we got here

But you do profit from it, it's called a first mover advantage. You will have your fixed costs paid off while other companies are still learning about your idea, so you can undercut any new competitors that directly copy you.

Patents only serve to hinder innovation and artificially protect certain parties at the expense of the larger economy.

Oh, now I don't have to be just good at innovation, I ALSO have to be good at turning it into profit? Yeah, specialization is such a terrible thing.

good at innovation lol

Yes? Your "innovation" is worthless to society if you sit on it. Far better to allow everyone to freely use each other's ideas, creating continuous improvement

No, you wouldn't necessarily profit. Big companies with money and power would specialize in stealing your inventions and profit from them before you.

>Try to watch video by British band on Jewtube while being British and living in Britain
>"This video isn't available in your area"
>Literally research what the fuck law this is bound by
>Find out it was they who made it
>As soon as they became relevant in music production
>The law itself doesn't even make sense and seems to revolve around some kind of pilpul
>Pure coincidence

I can't even remember the name of it, but you know how Jewish it is when it's even bragged on the encyclopedic Jew that Jews are behind it. I look forward to it gather some steam and then in 6 months the article being changed to mention a conspiracy against the eternal victim, pretty much in the same way they changed the Frankfurt School entry after redpills started to get dropped Nagasaki style.

>it's called a first mover advantage. You will have your fixed costs paid off while other companies are still learning about your idea, so you can undercut any new competitors that directly copy you.
Some research is way too expensive, it is only profitable if companies have exclusivity for some time

Pharma for example; In this context, patents actually promote innovation to surpass competitors

If you're good enough to come up with a product worth copying, they will probably be willing to hire you to continue improving on it.

Better outcome than you making a temporary profit at the expense of society, then getting driven out of business as soon as your patent expires (or a foreign company copies it anyway)

The actual hard work necessary to turn an idea into reality.

Trade secrets cover it, doesn't have to be patented. Not to mention patents sets up the market to be undermined by foreign competition, look at Indias pharma industry

They do that within the patent system.

If you invent something they you've beat your competitors in the creative marketplace. If everyone can just copy it and flood the market what's the fucking point? God, you're retarded.

then*

>what the point
Making sure the differing levels of quality go to the people paying the appropriate levels of price, its like how in your dorm, everyone has a scarface poster, but only a couple of people have that really bad ass scar face poster.

>Trade secrets cover it, doesn't have to be patented.
The government is there to solve externalities and enforce rules and contracts to help the market run smoothly.
If your trade secret is revealed and there is no risk of punishment, there is no point doing the research in the first place, my radical libertarian pal.

The patent system needs to be perfectionated not completely removed.

Because no one creates anything when they can't make profit of their intellectual property.

>Why should someone hold the exclusive right to assemble a particular arrangement of molecules?
how can someone be this stupid?

>and there is no risk of punishment

But there is. Not only would exposing trade secrets affect the reputation of the employees involved, if they signed an NDA they would be in breach of contract.

An improval of the patent system in America would be better than nothing though, you are right. Software patents especially need to be removed.

There would be NO incentive to develop anything if people could just copy you and get rich off of it. Stop playing stupid. If you really are this stupid, drink bleach.

Mfw i see old pol in this thread.


>>toasted raisin cinnamon bread withh apple butter

The whole point of licensing is to let other people get rich copying your ideas because you are too lazy to put them into practice.

In your version that would still help so people only develop things that are useful to make less useless bullshit just to fill some aisles and if that's the actual case, why aren't gobots as well respected as transformers?

>the reputation of the employees involved, if they signed an NDA they would be in breach of contract.
How would the company know? furthermore they (Individuals) wouldn't care if paid well enough.

>Software patents especially need to be removed.
I don't know enough about programming to give an opinion.

Because most arent commie fucks, regardless of current year, and merit should be rewarded.

You license because you own the patent and instead of using resources to produce what you patented you have someone else pay you to do it. You make money and they make money, but if anyone could just use your idea without licensing, inventions would be pointless. Stop being retarded.

>spend hundreds of millions in research trying to develop new technology
>as soon as you figure it out everyone steals your design
>You are being penalized, hundred of millions of dollars behind every other players in the new market, because you were the one to actually invest in research

>Far better to allow everyone to freely use each other's ideas
Better ded than red

>You make money (for doing nothing) and they make money (for doing everything else)

>inventions would be pointless
Then maybe you should start inventing useful things. Is a chair pointless just because anyone can slap together a few pieces of wood? People would pay you for your craftsmanship and expertise.

Same reason intellectual property is a thing. So I can't make and sell my own Simpsons or Disney merchandise.

>spend hundreds of millions in research trying to develop new technology
>as soon as you figure it out everyone gets in line to pay you to figure out what you learned
>several standards begin to form, and millions of dollars are at stake based on which one comes up with the best name and gimmick to market to the retarded public with nearly identical products

You can do that, you just have to accept extortion and pay them a bunch of money.

Yeh, the Chinese needs to pay american companies to figure out how to copy their products, right?

In reality, the only thing keeping you from doing that is your complete lack of merchandising knowledge, skills, and marketing abilities because I see persians at the swap meet selling homemade knock off injection molded toys and fake tshirts all the time.

>as soon as you figure it out everyone gets in line to pay you to figure out what you learned
A new product got out, should we pay the original company to tell us or just analize it and use the tech? Mmm, mmm, so hard to decide.

>or just analize it and use the tech?
So if its that easy why aren't you just duplicating the internet device you are using to shitpost and start selling copies to relatives for half of what they would pay at the store?

Selling knockoff shit at a flea market isn't what anybody is talking about. I can't buy a factory and produce Homer Simpson toys to sell at a legit store or online. You can fly under the radar for a bit, but the bigger the company, the bigger the nose on their lawyers.

>An individual can't do it that must mean companies couldn't do it either.
Your logic is flawless.

>I can't buy a factory
You can't buy a factory because you know nothing about producing toys, you can't afford to pay workers, you know nothing about hiring workers, and you know nothing about commercial development or anything else toy or factory related.

...

Large multinational companies knock each other off all the time, that was basically samsung's business model and it really didn't hurt apple because brand appeal and apple couldn't make enough at a low enough cost to appeal to the market segments that samsung capitalized on.

You are confusing market differentiation with my point. They can know each other off because they don't occupy the same niche.

Other industries are less superfluous

Could you just accept that you're the most retarded person in the thread and your bullshit isn't fooling anyone?
You have sat her and aid that if you can't market your invention, BY YOURSELF, IN A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT that your invention doesn't deserve to be recognized and is fair game for someone a large company that can market it to steal it. The law is in fucking place to prevent just that and to make companies work WITH inventors, not AGAINST them.

God damn it you colossal quadruple retard

Let's pretend I know enough and have enough capital to hire the people who know what they're doing. I still legally wouldn't be able to do it. Why are you nitpicking stupid details? It doesn't change anything.

>You can't buy a factory because you know nothing about producing toys, you can't afford to pay workers, you know nothing about hiring workers, and you know nothing about commercial development or anything else toy or factory related.
This is exactly what I mean. you are literally saying
>If you can't afford a factory to mass-produce your invention you made in your garage then you don't deserve to be paid for your idea

How can you not see the huge hole in this logic?

Smartphone/Tablet manufacturers aren't in the same niche?

>A specialized segment of the market for a particular kind of product or service:
>didn't hurt apple because brand appeal and apple couldn't make enough at a low enough cost to appeal to the market segments that samsung capitalized on.
Your own answer.

>that your invention doesn't deserve to be recognized
No that is what you are saying, you are saying that if you can't find a way to produce it, it doesn't deserve to be produced because you are the godmaster of the idea and its machinations and if you can't control it... nobody can control it.

>The law is in fucking place to prevent just that and to make companies work WITH inventors, not AGAINST them.
Too bad it ended up that companies just work WITH lawyers AGAINST inventors and still the inventors aren't getting any credit for the iPhone or Galaxy S, the multinational company they work for is getting all the credit, can you name one inventor on any on the patents in the billion dollar lawsuit between the two companies without looking it up?

>I still legally wouldn't be able to do it.
If you had all that capital and experience it would be trivial to get a license and if your production facilities were efficient enough to producing toys at drastically slashed costs, FOX and DISNEY would be knocking down your factory door to get contracts to make their toys at half the cost.

No one company can cover every niche, so that makes a even more damning case against patents because the holder can never even fulfill half the market potential of a produce even if they wanted and could always find some other niche to market to.

>No one company can cover every niche.
O.K., but, but, just think about it, consider, more than one company can cover one niche. And if they get the product without doing the research you are damaging innovation.

>even more damning case against patents because the holder can never even fulfill half the market potential of a produce even if they wanted and could always find some other niche to market to.
Such an idiotic conclusion. Stupid reds.

>No that is what you are saying, you are saying that if you can't find a way to produce it, it doesn't deserve to be produced because you are the godmaster of the idea and its machinations and if you can't control it... nobody can control it.
Yah you definitely don't know how patents work.
>wah the companies get all the creditz
And you get a whole bunch of money vs the company steals your idea and you get nothing because you have no law protecting it.
Really forces cognitive function to happen.

>government intervention to artificially allow a party to monopolize an idea
>not socialist

>consider, more than one company can cover one niche.
I know, you are the one that jumped to conclusions and said apple and samsung don't occupy the same niche while I was saying that apple was efficient at one niche and not at another, so samsung came to fill in and capitalize more efficiently on another niche. People who have a lot of money to spend still by apples people who couldn't normally afford apples or don't value the brand buy a galaxy.

>damaging innovation
No, you are just creating more versions at different costs and aiding innovation by helping see what works better to increase efficiency more rapidly, samsung galaxies have only added to catalogue of smartphone technology and taken nothing away.

>Not understanding how patents protect innovation and help the free market and capitalism.
>Thinking is socialism.
Burger, please.

>not recognizing intellectual property
>HUR ANYONE COULDA INVENTED THAT YOU JUST HAPPENED TO BE THE ONE TO THIK OF IT FIRST
>not socialist
This is exactly why the left has to import votes: you guys are to damn stupid and most people know it, so you import equally stupid people to vote for your party.

>you are the one that jumped to conclusions and said apple and samsung don't occupy the same niche
>apple was efficient at one niche and not at another,
>one niche and not another.
>2 niches.
>so samsung came to fill in

>No, you are just creating more versions at different costs and aiding innovation by helping see what works better to increase efficiency more rapidly, samsung galaxies have only added to catalogue of smartphone technology and taken nothing away.
Which economics books taught you this? From where did you get this idea that defies all logic of basic reward and effort/investment?

So I can commit patent fraud and live a good life on stolen tech.

>know how patents work.
I am talking about the ideals that make the basis of the patent system, not the practical application where nobody actually listens to anything and they all just pay armies of lawyers who pay people off to sort everything out and shield companies from losses.

>you get a whole bunch of money
The big lawsuit was for a billion dollars, do you really think your bunch of money they got was anywhere near that amount?

>you get nothing
If you discovered some amazing new technology, you don't think advanced manufacturers, tech companies, and would be lining up and bidding to pick your brain?

>

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

They both operate in both niches because they are giant companies that are into everything, but apple is efficient at the high end and capitalizes much better there, while samsung is lacking in the high end, but did well on the mid to lower end which apple has never been able to do well in.

Its basic supply and demand.

Both companies specialize in one of the 2 niches. That's "what i am trying to say".
I repeat my questions from where did you get the information to make claims like this about patents?

>I want to argue about something that I know little about
>faggots who ripped someone elses work off are equivalent to people who actually invent original ideas
>implying without patents that invention wouldn't be stolen the very first time someone got to look at it.
No, you weren't. build the wall.

That isn't feasible.

They were driven to separate niches due to market forces, its specialization in retrospect with 20/20 hindsight.

Having a patent makes it easier to steal someone else's idea since vague language in patents and high dollar lawyers go a lot further than originality.

That's is not the point, and you know it. It is a meaningless statement to this discourse.
From where did you learn economics?

That only means we have to modify patent laws not eliminate them. There is a risk of any law being exploited.

It wouldn't be stolen because it wouldn't be owned, it would be spread a lot wider and faster and a lot more people would have a sense of ownership of the idea than possible without artificial government invention restrictions stifling progress.

Yes, the point is you specialize in something based on your long term market performance and production capabilities, not just because someone who worked for the company thought of it first the original plan always worked as intended, why don't you come back when you have an argument and not rants about meaning.

The only reason corporations and individuals undertake the massive costs in capital and time to create new inventions is the expected economic benefit from the investment.

Creating something like a microprocessor is a bitch. Why would someone undertake that kind of endeavor for no individual benefit?

Yeah you might spout some bullshit about benefiting mankind, but helping humanity doesn't pay the bills or put food on the table.

Fuck off, china.

>Yes, the point is you specialize in something based on your long term market performance and production capabilities, not just because someone who worked for the company thought of it first the original plan always worked as intended,
Obviously. The point is that we were talking about that, we were talking about niches and how do patents affect industries with a more pragamtic market.

Any economics book is my argument,ยก. Patents and why do we need them is Economics101 for fuck's sake.

We weren't*

>how do patents affect industries with a more pragamtic market.
If the profit you can make is more than what your opponent can afford in lawyers, just do it.

Any legal book is my argument by the way.

homer suits you

A lawyer talking about economics? That's rich.

Don't you have a bull to prep at your academic institution with all your theories while lawyers handle the practical solutions to all your cute little values and ideals?

I prefer bears, they are way more interesting. Increased opportunities.

Lawyers handling practical solutions? kek. that's a good one. Economists do procure to find practical solutions to real problems