[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 74 KB, 350x349, patents.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.3711661 [Reply] [Original]

Have you guys patented anything ???

it seems like a bureacratic hell.

1000's of bucks to file it. it gets rejected. cry and complain. sell your house... you get a continue...mayve one day you get the patent.

a big corporation gets a "modified enough" patent.
the big boys fuck you in the ass and you get a heart attack in a court room. its like that

>> No.3711692

>>3711661

Thinking you invented something when you didn't is indeed a hassle.

>> No.3711698

Patents stifle innovation and should be eliminated.

>> No.3711702

i hold the us patent 1-784-692- for the jockstrap.

its my phone number.

>> No.3711700

Patents granted by the state stifle innovation and should be eliminated.

>> No.3711707

>>3711700
>>3711698
Patents are incentive for innovation.

>> No.3711710

>>3711707

State patents are not.

>> No.3711712

>>3711710
Who else would issue patents?

>> No.3711715

>>3711712

Private bodies.

>> No.3711718

>>3711712

Eutopian Patent Agencies. With voluntary compliance.

>> No.3711723

>>3711715
Congratulations:
you have ventured into the realm of self-parody.

>> No.3711724

>>3711715
You can see how that does not make any sense, right? Why would anybody care what some private patenting firm has to say about anything?

>> No.3711726

>>3711707

They stifle it more than they provide incentive. Progress is overwhelmingly collaborative and incremental - new ideas are built off of old ideas. Patents just create a giant roadblock at every single step.

>> No.3711732

patents and copyright need to die a rapid, painful death

I'd be willing to compromise slightly. Here's an idea I read about.

When you file a patent, if it is approved, an auction is held. (Choose your favorite auction type.) Highest bidder wins the patent, paying the inventor. Except! Except 70% of the time (or so, debatable), the government actually wins the patent, pays the patent developer whatever the winning bid was, and immediately releases it to the public domain.

Problem, monopolists?

>> No.3711737

>2011
>responding to Liberty

You must be new here.

>> No.3711738

>>3711723
>>3711718

Congratulations:
you have ventured into the realm of self-parody.

>>3711724

For the same reason certain car repair comapnies advertise that their mechanics are A.S.C. certified.

>> No.3711748

>>3711738
>For the same reason certain car repair comapnies advertise that their mechanics are A.S.C. certified.
No, you don't understand. Who enforces the patent?

>> No.3711749
File: 22 KB, 300x299, 1469225-glorious_exposition_comrade_super.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3711732

> private company buys patent
> gubbmint simply takes it

>> No.3711757

>>3711749
> I can't read
way to fail again, Liberty.

>> No.3711759

>>3711748

The owner. If another company or person initiates and act of aggression against the holder, the holder can defend themselves.

>> No.3711762

>>3711749
Gubmint doesn't keep it though, they take it to make it public, like park lands.

>> No.3711772

>>3711759
>The owner.
Why does he need a patent to do that though?
>defend himself
Defend himself how?

>> No.3711773

>>3711762

> theft is great and will help innovation

Yeah, nah.

>> No.3711783

>>3711772

First place always wins.

Defending yourself any way that is needed.

>> No.3711779

>>3711726
>Progress is overwhelmingly collaborative and incremental - new ideas are built off of old ideas.

And interestingly, that's how science and academia work. You don't need to get permission or pay the author to cite a paper. In fact, scientists and academics want to get cited as much as possible, as it increases their standing. But for some reason when it comes to practical applications, we have these retarded intellectual property rules.

>> No.3711782

>>3711773
> market price is determined through auction
> government pays that price
> theft
What is your problem, dude? Are you seriously that dumb? Even someone trolling for fun is right *sometimes*.

>> No.3711795

>>3711782

> someone besides the gubbmint wins the auction
> gubbmint takes possession of the patent
> not theft

wut

>>3711779

> if we remove the incentive to create (ownership of original ideas), people will create and innovate more

wut

>> No.3711796

>>3711783
>First place always wins.
You're making no sense at all.
In a world without states, what does a patent even do?
>Defending yourself any way that is needed.
So like, I invent a new, efficient lightbulb. I register it as a patent at some firm, but another company does not give a shit and starts using my patented idea to make lightbulbs. Do I just go over to their house with a baseball bat and knock over their mailbox or what?

>> No.3711797

>>3711783

You know that scene in Holy Grail where the peasant is explaining the Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune?.....I read ALL your posts in that voice.

>> No.3711799

>>3711795
Sure, they won the auction. Now we know what the market price is, approximately. Now the government pays that price.

Problem for normal people? No. Problem for Liberty? Of course, because he doesn't understand how this is an improvement.

>> No.3711806

>>3711796

A direct and easier way to determine who has a claim to what property.

If you personally feel that is self-defense, you are silly.

>> No.3711808

>>3711795
>implying ownership of original ideas is the only incentive to create
So are you like, completely disconnected from reality?

>> No.3711811

>>3711799

So it is theft. Glad we cleared that up. Once again, glorious exposition, comrade.

>> No.3711820

>>3711806
>A direct and easier way to determine who has a claim to what property.
Why does some separate body get to decide what MY property is? Sounds a lot like a government, dirty commie.

>> No.3711828

>>3711808

> implying good for the community, or alleged utilitarianism, is the only incentive, or even a major one

>> No.3711824

>>3711811
>paying for something
>theft
Haha, you are so dumb. Talk some more, it amuses me.

>> No.3711822

>>3711795

The incentive to innovate is to keep up with the competition. Patents are anti-competitive market distortions, that actually makes most innovation illegal.

>babbys first economics

>> No.3711837

>>3711828
>implying you aren't strawmanning it up right now
Try again.

>> No.3711841

>>3711811
> implying winning an auction necessarily implies paying the bid and collecting the property
Goddamn you really are horribly dumb. I know most people just ignore you, but I feel it is important to have a few of us show the newfags why you're so retarded.

>> No.3711845

charging people for there own ideas. BLOODY CAPITALIST SCUM!

>> No.3711849

So anyway, does anyone besides Liberty have any comments on the proposed adjustment to the patent system?

Can we get a /sci/ consensus?

>> No.3711853
File: 17 KB, 367x334, obama (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3711820

You opt in, silly. You do not have to get a patent.

>>3711822

> state patents

>>3711824

> order food at restaurant
> the ordering of the food is an implicit contract with the seller that the food is mine and that i can eat it before paying
> food arrives, government takes it
> it is not theft because the gubbmint paid for it huuuuuur derp

lolwut

>> No.3711854

>>3711849

WikiPatent. Self Policed, nobody has a dollar advantage over anyone else. First come, first patented. Five year expiration.

>> No.3711855

>>3711841

The contract is implicit. The ONLY reason they are bidding is to take ownership of the item.

>> No.3711865

in away its a good idea to for patents to be hard to attain.
It reduce the amount of chaff the clerks would have to shift threw.
And it also mean designer/inventors etc do more research into their idea.

>> No.3711866

>>3711853
>You opt in, silly. You do not have to get a patent.
Let's see. I pay to get a patent. Which does fucking nothing, unless other people want it to do something, which they won't, because it does not benefit them in any way whatsoever.
Sounds like another awesome Liberty idea.
>order food at restaurant
>implying a restaurant is an auction

>> No.3711872

I do like the following aspect of turbo's idea:

> government has to pay auctioned price for 70 percent of all patents
> everyone bids all patents to trillions of dollars
> government then accepts or declines to buy patent
> if they decline, the patent is given to the highest bid
> the highest bidders simply withdraw their bid/ accept a punishment for withdrawing the bod
> the person that actually wanted the patent gets it at their highest bid
> gubbmint never wins a patent

I like.

>> No.3711871

>>3711865
>through
having a off day.

>> No.3711870

>>3711853

And that is why my secret family recipe for fried chicken... STAYS SECRET.

Protip: KFC has MSG in it. Don't eat that shit.

>> No.3711876

>>3711866

I'm going to try and Patent the idea of an Auction Restaurant. I think it will work if I can get a lot of pot smokers as clientele and stay open very late.

>> No.3711878

>>3711866

The patent proves actual ownership, silly.

> implying the auctions are not contracts for you to retain the item you bid on if you win

>>3711870

> eating fast food

Hello, male with large stomach girth.

>> No.3711881

>>3711811
It's only theft if you think that ideas can be owned.

Ideas aren't unique. People aren't special. Ideas are not ownable because they come not from the individual but from the collective human unconscious.

Individuality is an illusion, which is why the idea of "liberty" and "individualism" is a farce. Herd mentrality is human truth, individualism is a human fabrication.
The good is all.

>> No.3711884

>>3711881

Ideas, of course, can be owned. Most ideas are owned and never shared.

> the argument against free will that says all democrats think away they do, or act a certain way, partly, because a black man raped a woman in 1975

Haha.

There is only tyranny in the majority.

>> No.3711887

>>3711878
>The patent proves actual ownership, silly.
Oh reeeeaaaaally? But why would anybody care what one of possibly hundreds of private patenting agencies has to say about shit?

If some factory decides to use my patented idea to produce a product, without my permission, what the fuck is gonna happen? I'm going to have to defend myself and my property, right? How would it be any different WITHOUT the patent then?

>> No.3711890

>>3711887

They do not have to care.

Self-defense is an option.

How did the company attain the patent?

>> No.3711892

>>3711890
>They do not have to care.
Then again, what is the point of the patent if there is nothing to enforce it? It's basically just an opinion, in print.
>How did the company attain the patent?
They don't need the patent, just the idea. Ideas spread.

>> No.3711896

>Liberty creates a troll thread under anon
>argues with himself for a few posts
>suddenly idiots start bumping the thread and arguing too

>> No.3711898

>>3711892

Enforcement (or use, in a broader sense) is completely irrelevant to ownership.

How did they attain the idea?

>> No.3711900

>>3711896

I NEVER start threads on /sci/. Not ever.

>> No.3711907

>>3711898
>How did they attain the idea?
Maybe it leaked out.
Maybe they reverse-engineered it.
Maybe they just came to the same idea, but later.
It is irrelevant. How does my patent stop them from using my patented idea without my permission?

>> No.3711911

>>3711907

The ownership grants self-defense.

>> No.3711921

>>3711911
But does ownership only exist when I have a patent to prove it?
If not, then again, what is the point of the patent?

>> No.3711923

>>3711921

Nope.

I wrote earlier: A direct and easier way to determine who has a claim to what property.

>> No.3711932

>>3711923
Great. So the patent adds absolutely nothing, it just costs money. Yeah, it's very obvious to me why you think this would stimulate innovation.

>> No.3711933

>>3711907
The only thing that patent is good for is to communicate that it's the original, genuine product.

For example, you could design the "Thingermajacker" which offers... personal satisfaction... to men.

Then a company steals your idea and makes the same thing.

But only you can put an "Official Original Thingermajacker Seal of Genuinity" on your product. So all it does is help with brand loyalty.

Which in my mind, is all you deserve.

>>3711884
You can't own an idea. If you "own" an idea but do not announce it, it only "exists" in your head, as in it is unreal.

If someone else has that idea later, they can make that thing real and you can't come out and say "HEY THATS MY IDEA".

In comes patents. Patents are a contrivance to make the intangible, the unreal, into something "real". But it's not real. Patents are a legal fiction, like corporate personhood, designed only to make imaginary money for lawyers and big corporations who make their living ripping people off over patents.

>> No.3711937

>>3711932

It does add though. Did you miss the last sentence?

>> No.3711939

>>3711933

The existence makes it real.

Hence why the patent is a direct and easier way to determine ownership.

I do agree that corporations are the children of the state.

>> No.3711942

>>3711937
But it does not help determine ownership. Since you have multiple patenting agencies, you will have multiple, conflicting patents. And it does not prove ownership, it simply proves who had the money to patent it.

>> No.3711950
File: 14 KB, 625x316, supernova location.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Anyone heard about this white dwarf nova? It's the closest one in a long while, 21 million light years away. Everyone's been calling it a supernova, but it's not quite "Super". Thought I'd let you guys know, and also ask - is it worth it for me to take a trip out to my local space / science museum to maybe see it? I've heard they might have their telescopes trained at this thing.

>> No.3711957

>>3711950
Ahahaha, sorry, did not mean to post that in this thread.

>> No.3711952

>>3711942

Patents depend on time invented. It is irrelevant that a person has patented the same idea at another place, at a later date.

>> No.3711953

>>3711950
I'd get a patent on that, if I were you.

>> No.3711960

>>3711952
*snort*
Yeah, there's obviously not gonna be any shuffling with the dates, is there? Hahaha, oh man, this guy.

>> No.3711965

>>3711960

> there will be fraud

That would be an initial act of aggression.

>> No.3711977

>>3711965
Totally. What's your point?

>> No.3711979

>>3711977

Self-defense.

>> No.3711987

they guy who first invented a decent road patented his idea, but it was so good nobody paid attention to it and he never made money from it.
Wish i could remember his name, he was mentioned in a bbc4 show about how rain changed Britain because before then all the road would turn to mud.

guess i'll have to hit up wiki.

>> No.3711990

>>3711979
Uh-huh. Your point being? The people who have enough money/power to commit this patent fraud aren't going to be intimidated by your self-defense.

>> No.3711991

Patents were fine for the time they were created but now that we progress technology so rapidly they're just an enormous speed bump on the road of innovation.

>> No.3712000

>>3711990

They do not need to be "intimidated."

>>3711991

> innovation is hindered by ownership

You mean improves it.

>> No.3712012

>>3712000
>They do not need to be "intimidated."
Okay, they're not intimidated. They ignore your futile attempts at self-defense, and keep abusing your idea, regardless of your patent.

>> No.3712018

>>3712012

Yes, democracy has a lot of problems.

>> No.3712019

I believe OP has patented.. being a faggot

badumtss

>> No.3712020

>>3712018
We're talking about a truly free, stateless world. Try to keep up.

>> No.3712023

>>3711939
It makes the patent real. It does not make the idea real. The only real thing is the physical object that is patented. You cannot "own" the process of making something, all you can do is keep it secret. If someone reverse engineers or otherwise figures it out, there shouldn't be a legally fictitious way of punishing them for "stealing" from you something that cannot be posessed.

>> No.3712032
File: 28 KB, 630x592, 1265672093267.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>30 Hidden Posts
>My /sci/ filter only has has Liberty in it

People who don't want to have others use 'their' ideas shouldn't put their ideas forward, they should keep them in a box. It will be absolutely hilarious when someone else thinks of 'their' idea and gets credit for their contribution to mankind.

Ownership should just be credit for the idea, nothing more.

>> No.3712033

>>3712020

Absolute freedom includes rape, murder, and slavery. Liberty on the other hand...

>>3712023

Possession has nothing to do with ownership.

>> No.3712039

>>3712033
>Absolute freedom includes rape, murder, and slavery. Liberty on the other hand...
>does not support freedom
I didn't know you were a statist, this is new.
At any rate, let's continue our little hypothetical.
In a world of 'liberty' your attempts at self-defense prove futile, now what?

>> No.3712048

>>3712033
Fine, go ahead with your semantics. I have already established that it cannot be possessed OR owned. The intangible cannot be owned. Anything saying otherwise is a human invention- a lie we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better.
Example: Fiat Currency and electronic money. Most of our money does not physically exist. That means it doesn't really exist at all. We've built our economy on lies, which is why it's in shambles.
Since an idea is just an arrangement of neurons in your brain, you're telling me you can patent neural networks? You can patent thoughts?

>> No.3712052

>>3712033
liberty is not pareto efficient

>> No.3712055

>>3712019

Being a fag. Patented!

whining at sci. Work in progress! XD

>> No.3712399

>>3711715

Good name for a soft core porn

>> No.3712436

>>3712039

Absolute freedom is also a state. Liberty is no state.

I support Liberty because it has no initial acts of aggression. What logical person would support any system that includes rape or murder or slavery?

>>3712048

Ownership is simply the ability to deny access to something without initiating an act of aggression against them.

>>3712052

Good thing I argue for Liberty then.

>> No.3713189

tl;dr
im sitting on the correct design for the bessler wheel
what the hell to do with it..?
im sure im gonna get screwed out of it
for all those who cant belive it exists; you are a big part of why it is so valuable and you yourselves are an asset to those who have perpetuated the deception