I’m just curious for the new or existing people? Lemmy.ml has taken a hard turn to the right since the reddit exodus. There’s been a lot of pro-imperialist propaganda being posted on world news, and a lot less diversity of opinion. It feels more neoliberal and neo-con to me.
Does anyone want to share what their political leanings are?
I’ll start; I’m anti-imperialist pro-state regulated capitalism. I believe we should have usage based taxes (toll roads, carbon tax) and luxury taxes, and I disagree with wealth taxes for people with less than $250 million. The state should spend more money on consumer protection in all industries (environment, health, finance, etc.) I believe in multipolarity vs. US hegemony.
Whats the solution to the issue small startups would face w.o patents when the mega-corps just take their innovation and package it differently?
Don’t detail exactly what the innovation is before its ready to sell, it takes time to get something into a product and to get that product into production. Name recognition is everything, for some time the small starup is the name of the innovation, and that recognition does not just vanish. Other companies have built comparable or beter electric cars by now, but you know who im talking about when i say that electric car company.
Alternateivly copy something a large corporation is doing, or better yet, build on something they are doing.
Also employee owned companies tend not to aggressively expand. And governments need to break up the kind of company that is large enough to destroy all competition. That leads me to another opinion, buying another company should not be allowed in a capitalist economy, because that only ever makes the market less free.
I’m unsure why the invention is safe from piracy simply because it was sold - any company can claim they did it first and w.o patents, or at the very least something else documented contemporaneously, how does the original inventor prove their claim?
Second, I can imagine innovators being uncomfortable having to withhold their contributions/knowledge in order to profit - surely that’s the primary benefit of the patent system? i.e., a way where the information is provided to the public while protecting their ability to say the inventor is the one who discovered that information. Simply put, without patents, no innovation is allowed except to the extent the discoverer wants to share their information with the public.
Imo, you touched on a really important point in your third paragraph - there is no reason (aside from cost) that ONLY the employer should realize the benefit of the patent. Imo, an employEE (not employer) should be the owner of the knowledge - but then how does any single employee pay the large fees required to defend their patent in court or through licenses
Ahh I see - its fine as long as you only steal from someone larger than you - I’m sure those larger corps (known for their altruism right?) wont steal ideas from the little guys… (this goes back to my initial point, how to protect the little guy?)
I agree - in Canada (which is merely the jurisdiction I happen to be familiar with), the law is written such that “an act engaged in pursuant only to the exercise of any right or enjoyment of any interest derived under the . . . Patent Act . . . is not an anti- competitive act” In other words, to be anti-competitive requires conduct beyond simply ‘using’ your IP rights, such that an “abuse of a dominant position” is required.
I’m unsure what this would mean for owners who are reaching the end of their life (I’m presuming you think corporations should outlive their founders, since that is one of the main advantages for registering a corporation as opposed to a sole-proprietorship or partnership entity).