
Ask HN: Do you think Intellectual Property laws do more good or harm? - bkmeneguello
Millions of people suffer because medical equipments and medicine are protected by these laws, there is no point in thread an individual liberty to protect an abstract concept like an idea or invention.
======
WheelsAtLarge
I'm one that believes that patents are an important part of society. One of
the reasons the U.S. has had so many technological advancements is that people
are able to profit from their ideas. Right now many people are trying to come
up with the next million-dollar idea. Most will be trivial without much
impact, even if they make a million dollars, but a few will change everything
or a combination of them will change everything. Yes, protecting ideas may
sometimes seem like they are hurting people but keep in mind that in most
cases the idea would have never been had there not been protection for ideas.

The problem comes when people start to game the system and use their influence
to get an advantage over others. The problems we see are mostly related to the
way the rules have been set. So it's a matter of tweaking the rules rather
than getting rid of the system.

So, no, I don't think Intellectual Property laws do more harm than good.

------
DoreenMichele
We need some mechanism by which to encourage people with good ideas to make
those ideas available to the world rather than keeping it to themselves.
Intellectual Property laws are our current mechanism for rewarding such
behavior and thereby encouraging people to add value to the system.

Maybe they aren't optimal. Maybe there's a better solution.

But doing away with them without first coming up with a superior method for
making sure those ideas get shared at all is a great way to strangle the
supply of better ideas and new inventions. Counting on people to give that
stuff away for free out of the goodness of their hearts so everyone else can
benefit while the brilliance of the originator gets treated abusively like
slave labor is an excellent way for the world to cut its own throat.

Brilliant people can choose to turn their brilliance towards a "Fuck you, got
mine!" personal policy if the world wishes to habitually and by policy fuck
them over. Encouraging them to behave that way is an excellent way to actively
foster a dystopian future.

------
bediger4000
Way more harm than good. "Intellectual property" locks up ideas, which hinders
human progress. That might be tolerable if the monopoly so granted was short.
But it's not, it's what, life+70 years or something? And it never gets shorter
- we only increase copyright term.

The legal setup around copyrights and patents is also indicative of "bad". We
can no longer inspect some item and decide whether or not it's copyrighted,
for example. We have decided that the default is "assume copyright". You
basically have to have a trial to decide whether some use is OK under one of
the exceptions to copyright. This limits educational and critical use, and
this, in practice, limits free speech.

------
CyberFonic
The original intent of patents was to provide the inventor a window of
opportunity to profit from their invention. Unfortunately corporations are
gaming the system and have weaponized patents. The basic problem is that
whilst you can get a patent granted for tens of thousands, large corporations
wilfully infringe upon patents because it costs millions to defend them and
the typical inventor does not have the resources to defend.

As with most things the IP laws have resulted in perverse incentives
benefitting those who can afford to spend the shareholders' money in their
quest to protect their monopolies. The little guy gets screwed, yet again.

------
zzo38computer
I think they are more harmful than good (although in the past it might have
been more neutral, although I am still against copyright/patent laws in
general). I think patents and copyright should be abolished (although
trademarks might be useful, although I don't know if the trademark laws should
be altered a bit maybe). Stuff I write myself I make it to be public domain
because I don't like copyright. Copyright/patents don't promote inventions;
they tend to hinder it instead, I think.

~~~
david_w
What is your counter-argument to people who write for a living and say they
need copyright to protect their livelihoods? Say fiction or technical manual
writers? It's the entirety of their work product. Should they just find
something else to do? How should they be rewarded for their time and effort?
Not trolling, just trying to understand how an anti-copyright advocate would
argue this case.

~~~
zzo38computer
Question Copyright has many ideas (and there are also counterarguments in the
comments, although there are problems with some parts of some of the
counterarguments). I would buy a book if I want a printed copy, at least.
There is also possibility of agreeing to write or modify it in exchange for
payment, and there is also trademarks (including the "Creator Endorsed" mark),
and I am not suggesting to abolish trademarks (although a lot of fair use
should be allowed in many circumstances, maybe more than the current laws I
don't know). Also, I am not suggesting that someone should be forced to
publish something, but if they do, then someone could copy it (if they want
to), with or without modifications (although the author should be allowed to
specify (if he want to) that altered versions should not be confused with the
original version (except for technical compatibility purposes in some cases,
e.g. if a file format requires the file to contain the text "This file is
authorized by [company name]", then it does, although the documentation that
comes with the file would mention that it is not true and is only included for
the compatibility reasons)). You can also charge money for a CD, DVD,
admission fee for a concert, etc, or even for download if you want to
(although I am not advising it, and even if you do, others do not have to
change for the download too). If you have not sold any DVDs yet, then nobody
is allowed to steal one in order to copy it or trespass on your property in
order to make a copy, but once you sell a copy to someone who wishes to copy
it, then they can (including format shifting). Also, a company providing it as
a service could still have terms of service that say they can terminate your
service (but cannot force you to pay for it in this case, unless you have
already paid and received the service in exchange) (also, someone can still
set up a competing service if they don't like their terms of service,
anyways).

[0] [https://questioncopyright.org/understanding-free-
content](https://questioncopyright.org/understanding-free-content)

------
buboard
Patents are one way for the state to select who will become rich and who
won't. There is little justification for "intellectual property" in a free
market.

------
badrabbit
In the US you mean? The problem is much more endemic in that you need money to
hire a good lawyer to fight against someone with money, be it patent,civil or
criminal law

------
notlukesky
There is a historical argument against software patents. And one can be made
for shorter durations for hardware ones now.

------
erkken
I think In 99% of the cases, the costs, work and effort by far outweighs
possible benefits.

