this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2026
516 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
83569 readers
2639 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can see the purpose when done correctly but that would mean maybe a 3-5 year protection to give you a headstart on the competition not 20+ years of monopoly and stagnation.
The notion that ideas need protection from competition is foundationally caustic. The current regime incentivises locking them behind exclusionary and extractive mechanics as if they’re finite, when they’re intrinsically the opposite.
I can see how ‘IP’ can appear appealing, if not justifiable, but I’d argue this is only because alternatives have been too effectively suppressed by the sociopaths benefiting from the status quo.
Can you talk about what are those effective alternatives that have been suppressed you are referring to as a replacement for the current IP scheme?
I feel like I realized something profound when I was replying to your message initially. I was going to say something that I still find somewhat reasonable: if you create or develop or invent something useful or revolutionary, surely people shouldn't be allowed to copy it for free? You did all the work
But then I realized that's pretty close to poor people voting against taxing m/billionaires more. I'm not a millionaire, and I'm not developing any revolutionary tech either
The problem patents were solving was an inventor creating something and having it completely taken over by a well funded company leaving said inventor penniless. They created a new problem, though, when the well funded companies realized they could just buy all the patents and force everyone else to pay them while holding those ideas hostage.
One of the greatest tricks Capitalists ever pulled was convincing creative individuals that copyright exists to serve their interests.
My comments stem from broader work I’ve been ruminating on.
The current IP regime (copyright, patents, trademark, etc.) incentivise locking ideas up and away as tightly as possible, they aren’t fit for purpose, and should be largely done away with, but the void that would leave needs a replacement that is proven and battle hardened.
My current proposition is a mechanism that rewards the spread of knowledge, and its comprehension, as broad and deep as practicable.
Creating, discovering, disseminating, and explaining ideas should be rewarded, but not by housing them in conjured gaol cells.