Comment

Comment on Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk would like to ‘delete all IP law’ | TechCrunch

I see the value in trademarks because it prevents people from selling knock-offs. In some cases (medicine, machine tools) using a knock-off could be deadly.

For patents, I don’t think it should be one-size-fits-all. A modern drug takes a lot longer to develop than some e-commerce thing like one-click ordering. Different categories of thing could get different lengths of patent protection. Also, IMO, the clock should start once something is available in the market. Again, I’m thinking of medicine. Something might be working in the lab so it’s patented, but going from lab to store shelves is not quick. If the clock starts immediately, then that mostly benefits huge and rich pharma companies that can move extremely quickly.

I strongly believe that if we have copyrights, they should be short with an optional renewal that’s also short. Too much of our culture is locked up by companies like Disney. They shouldn’t be able to hold onto it for more than a century. That’s absurd. For the most part, media makes the vast majority of its money in months. 14 years gives the creator not only the most lucrative period, but also the vast majority of the tail of the distribution. It would also be good if corporate-owned copyright had a much shorter term than copyrights owned by individuals. And, we also need to have a way for people to get their own creations back, by say cancelling the copyright assignment.

source

Sort:hotnew top

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
A modern drug takes a lot longer to develop than some e-commerce thing like one-click ordering.

Sure, that’s what the one-time extension is for.

The way they use patents, however, is completely abusive. In general:

patent the process to make the drug

release the drug

around the time the patent is set to expire, patent a slightly different process, and get authorities to ban the old one

repeat

Patents last 20-25 years, which is just ridiculous for pretty much anything. Here’s how I envision the process for medicines:

patent the process to make the drug

struggle to get through approval process w/ FDA - can take years

renew patent and release drug -> approved because you obviously haven’t recouped your costs

after 5-7 years, you have recouped your R&D money and established your brand, so the patent is no longer important (i.e. most people still buy name-brand Tylenol because it’s trusted, despite cheaper alternatives being just as effective)

For something like a phone:

patent the process to make the device

release device

file for renewal -> rejected because you’ve already made up your R&D costs and no longer need a monopoly

14 years gives the creator not only the most lucrative period, but also the vast majority of the tail of the distribution

Agreed, as well as with your point about corporations. I used 14 because it has precedent, but honestly 10 years is more reasonable. It needs to be long enough that a work that didn’t get mainstream attention in the first few years but gets it later doesn’t get sucked up by a competitor, but short enough that it’s still relevant culturally when it expires.
source