But why? If I patented something (that I'd spent resources on inventing), I'd sell a license for a reasonable sum, not block its use. That's the intent of the system.
Or if I found a patent that was a solution to my problem, I'd buy a licence.
People buy hardware, software, services all the time. Companies also do that and use them to build more value and sell that further.
Software patents have lots of problems but the idea to just throw it all in the trash bin is a bit black and white.
You could for example have (international?) patent courts that would prevent monopoly-by-patent things.
People buy hardware, software, services all the time.
There is a big difference between hardware and services, and patents. Software is a whole other deal, and I object to the whole model of proprietary distribution as well, but that's besides the point.
Fact is, an idea is an abstract concept, not a physical good or a services. One cannot own an abstract concept - the very notion of that is completely nonsensical. If somebody has a an idea, and tells (gives) that idea to somebody else, both people will have that idea now. You cannot say the same of a physical good or a service.
Besides, arguing for the status quo by citing the status quo is a circular argument.
the idea to just throw it all in the trash bin is a bit black and white.
We have a system built upon paradoxical, nonsensical and self-contradictory basics which does nothing but help create artificial monopolies and slow down or halt technological progress for the benefit of a few big corporations.
There is but this only option, and that's to completely scrap it and never try it again. I'm honestly tired of seeing 'but that's black and white thinking' in defense of a completely indefensible position. Sometimes there are things which are simply bad - patents are one of those things.
You could for example have (international?) patent courts that
would prevent monopoly-by-patent things.
The solution to a massively broken system that, in large parts, relies on huge amounts of bureaucracy is even more bureaucracy? I think not.
You cannot fix this system - it's broken by default.
"Fact is, an idea is an abstract concept, not a physical good or a services. One cannot own an abstract concept - the very notion of that is completely nonsensical. If somebody has a an idea, and tells (gives) that idea to somebody else, both people will have that idea now. You cannot say the same of a physical good or a service."
Actually that holds true for all digital content and also partially for a lot of hardware as well: if you release all the production documentation of some physical thing, it might cheap to produce a large amount of copies. Development of something like a modern car takes money in the billion dollar category. There might be all kinds of innovations that required lots of trial and error there to make this or that part reliably.
You could develop new chemicals or medicines that might in the end be producable by simple processes, ie they might be simple ideas in the end, yet you might have spent a lot of effort to discover them. If you can't patent them, then that means it's not a viable business anymore to try to create such new things, or then those new things must be hidden very well. These are exactly the problems that patents were created for to solve!
I know there are for example individuals (let's say a professor) who provide a service for money: they offer to create some algorithms to classify some customer's data. Then they give that algorithm to the customer in exchange for money. The algorithm can be seen as just an idea, it's not anything that can be touched. It is clearly valuable to the company as it is willing to pay money for it. The company saves money by not having to employ a person with that kind of expertise, since it doesn't need it full time. I's a bit the same how some company like id can buy a license for an image compression algorithm from Microsoft since it's not their core business to develop such. Both parties win. That's ordinary business.
That being said, I do think that really stupid things are given patents and it certainly is a problematic thing in the "idea" and software world. But there certainly was a need why the patent system was created in the first place, and if it's just destroyed, we'll see that that need hasn't vanished. We'd go back into a much more secretive world.
These are exactly the problems that patents were created for to solve!
Yet they don't fulfill this purpose in the slightest bit. Besides, I don't care if some people suddenly stop innovating because there is no longer any money to be made - which is nonsense, anyways. It's the same as the ever so often repeated lie that you cannot make money with free music or software. It's simply the system's dynamics that change.
That's ordinary business.
"Ordinary business" is both everything that is wrong with the patent system as well as quite a few other things on this planet. As I said, citing the status quo to argue for it is a circular argument.
But there certainly was a need why the patent system was created
Yes, there was a need for monopolists to have even more tools at their disposal to control the market. As I said multiple times, patents were never meant to protect small businesses, or help the small, clever man with a clever idea. It's pretty much the same as saying that copyright was made for artists - it's plain wrong.
Patents have always profited those with power and influence on the system, those with much money to file law suits, and those who are already rich. While there might be some success stories of small men or businesses, those are the exception, and by no means the rule.
We'd go back into a much more secretive world.
I disagree. We'd be in a much more cooperative world, since monopolizing knowledge is no longer possible. It would no longer be feasible to work on problems alone in the hope of making money from the eventual monopoly on the solution, as cooperation increases the benefits for everyone. Incremental development based on each others discoveries could lead to rapid advancement of technology, instead of the - excuse my language - clusterfuck of a stalemate we currently have.
> Fact is, an idea is an abstract concept, not a physical good or a services. One cannot own an abstract concept - the very notion of that is completely nonsensical. If somebody has a an idea, and tells (gives) that idea to somebody else, both people will have that idea now. You cannot say the same of a physical good or a service.
You're missing the point. Filing patents isn't (in theory) about hoarding ideas. It's a way to ensure that when you expend (often large amounts of) money and/or effort in order to develop a new technology, you are able to reap the rewards. Often, a new technology is most valuable to the first person to commercialize it.
Or if I found a patent that was a solution to my problem, I'd buy a licence.
People buy hardware, software, services all the time. Companies also do that and use them to build more value and sell that further.
Software patents have lots of problems but the idea to just throw it all in the trash bin is a bit black and white.
You could for example have (international?) patent courts that would prevent monopoly-by-patent things.