• Pyr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    17 hours ago

    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.

    • nonentity@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

      • sniggleboots@europe.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        58 minutes ago

        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