This man made nothing on his invention and was not motivated by money but fame.
And then he sued the company for $20 million because the CEO didn’t want to respect his efforts and stiffed him.
Comment on Why It Was Almost Impossible to Make the Blue LED
Clent@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Excellent counter example to anyone claiming that we need patent and copyright to innovate.
This man made nothing on his invention and was not motivated by money but fame.
There are endless of examples of how those who do things for money hold back the creativity that leads to innovation. This is one of them. It almost didn’t happen because his pursuit was not seen as profitable.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Clent@lemmy.world 9 months ago
And the amount he actually won only covered the legal fees, so he made nothing.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 9 months ago
And if he had been granted a patent for his invention, he would have been fairly compensated for his work by being able to license production to companies that had the means to make them at scale. OP seems to think this scenario is an example of how patents should be abolished, but it’s a perfect example of why we have them in the first place. And that reason is so that rich people don’t fuck over comparatively poor inventors.
Clent@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Your cognitive dissonance is why we cannot improve this system. Patents cannot both be responsible for his lack of profit from his invention and how he would have been fairly compensated.
Parents do exists and we was not fairly compensated, therefore patent do not solve their intended problem.
We live in this reality. Not whatever rose colored version you think could exist if we just get the correct tweaks in place.
At some point we need to stop trying to adapt the concepts people came up with hundreds of years ago. Created in a world that no longer resembles our own.
Consider how contentious the issue was that they redefined to included it in the constitution. The consider what other contentious issues were also included in that same document, i.e. the three fifths compromise.
faultyproboscus@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
Sure, but the company fronted the millions of dollars required to develop the technology. The investment needs to come from somewhere.
That doesn’t have to be a private company, though. We need public funding that retains the patent rights, if not just to make the invention free from licensing costs to manufacture.
The insane thing about our current system is that we do have public funding, but private companies wind up with the patent anyway
Clent@lemmy.world 9 months ago
The company didn’t invent it. A person did. The company almost stopped it from being invented. They didn’t spend millions inventing this. A person spent tens of thousands of hours inventing it.
That the funding is only available from a company is a result of the patent system. It does not spur development, it perverts it. Any ideas to the contrary are propaganda.
People have been inventing shit longer than corporations have existed. People have been inventing things without any guarantee on return on investment for most of human history.
Capitalism is bullshit and the capitalization of ideas harms humanity.
lud@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Maybe they didn’t invent it. But he wouldn’t have invented it without them.
Someone would have invented it eventually though.
Clent@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Correct. With or with patents and with or without copyright, it eventually would have been invented.
LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 9 months ago
Yeah it’s pretty bad and nobody talks about it. Nobody researches the effects of patents on our global civilization. I suspect the practical role of patents is to actually retard innovation - something gets improved or invented or most of the time just engineered to work better and monopolization or just paperwork makes it too expensive for wide spread adoption. This in turn helps prevents disruptive technology from making large scale investments obsolete - instead of having to adopt and improve your factories you can continue as before because any innovation will be slow and also priced to be around as expensive as existing solutions. Or the patent can just be bought. And even if an inventor has noble intentions, starting manufacturing yourself is a totally different skill set so like most startups often fails and then the patent gets sold off. Innovation becomes a commodity.
This is my logical conclusion but it’s speculative. I suspect researching negative effects of patents is a somewhat “taboo” topic for scientists to research.
In regards to climate change this becomes… genocidal. We have hundreds of thousands of industrial processes that rely on fossil fuels or certain levels of energy. With all the before mentioned effects this basically made a timely response to climate change impossible. Every little improvement to existing processes is patented and maximized for profit. Basically we never had a chance.