Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

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

⁨686⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨zaxvenz@lemm.ee⁩ to ⁨technology@lemmy.world⁩

https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/13/jack-dorsey-and-elon-musk-would-like-to-delete-all-ip-law/

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • qaz@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    A real nuisance for all those AI datasets, huh?

    source
    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I don’t think so, it seems they are already immune to it

      source
  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That’s probably better than what we have now, but still very short of ideal. Here’s my proposition:

    • keep trademark law as-is
    • cut patents to 5-7 years, with a one-time extension if the holder can demonstrate need
    • cut copyright to 14 years (original 1790 Copyright Act duration), with a one-time explicit extension, approved based on need
    • have existing patents and copyright expire at their original term, the above (for works patented/copyrighted within the term), or half the above (for works copyrighted outside the term), whichever is shorter

    That would solve most of the problems while keeping the vast majority of the benefits.

    source
    • 4am@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Also, patents shouldn’t be filable once prior art exists.

      Aka Nintendo patenting game mechanics 30 years after the fact to try and sue Palworld.

      Also game mechanics and UI features being tied to existing functionality (Amazon’s “one click”, Apple’s “swipe to unlock”) should not be considered novel.

      source
      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Also, patents shouldn’t be filable once prior art exists.

        That’s the case today, it’s just that the patent office accepts far more patents than it should. Those patents absolutely don’t hold up in court, but it really shouldn’t get to that point either.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Unmapped@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      This is the way.

      source
    • merc@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      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
      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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:

        1. patent the process to make the drug
        2. release the drug
        3. around the time the patent is set to expire, patent a slightly different process, and get authorities to ban the old one
        4. repeat

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

        1. patent the process to make the drug
        2. struggle to get through approval process w/ FDA - can take years
        3. renew patent and release drug -> approved because you obviously haven’t recouped your costs
        4. 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:

        1. patent the process to make the device
        2. release device
        3. 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
    • captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I would still keep patents at about 20 years. There’s some nuance that needs to change to prevent, say, Nintendo from retroactively patenting Pokemon after Palworld comes out, but yeah patent law needs a colonic.

      I’d be okay with 20 or even 30 year copyright terms on complete works, but I would be more open on derivative works and fair use.

      I want stricter trademark law. Trademark should be about knowing where your products come from. A manufacturer gets right of way over a mark so that they can defend their own reputation, and I’ll help them defend that mark because I want to know where the goods I buy come from.

      It should not be legal to buy a commodity item and slap your brand on it. I see this a lot in the tool market. There seems to be two 6" jointers in production in the world today, the one JET makes, and the one everyone else sells. Wen, Craftsman and Porter Cable among many others sell the same 6" jointer. Speaking of Craftsman, that brand is now owned by Stanley Black & Decker, who also owns Porter Cable, DeWalt, and several others. Most of what they use this for is to sell mutually incompatible yet functionally similar power tools so you have to buy more batteries. They might design or build some of their tools in-house, but many of them they buy from some other company and just put their stickers on. Is it, or is it not, a “Craftsman”?

      Then you’ve got Amazon, Temu, AliExpress and other Chinese dropshipping platforms. They make a whole bunch of shit and then register nineteen or twenty bullshit trademarks to sell the same thing under. I would make that illegal; if you have a brand that is suitable for selling a given item, you’re not allowed another for that purpose. Trademarks are supposed to reduce consumer confusion, you’re using them to increase consumer confusion. If I am elected dictator, that kind of behavior will earn you a public trepanning.

      source
      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It should not be legal to buy a commodity item and slap your brand on it.

        I disagree. However, I do think you should be obligated to disclose the source of that commodity so customers can use reviews of similar products to get an idea of the quality of yours. You’re still on the hook for warranties and whatnot, but you should need to disclose what you did and didn’t design/build.

        This goes doubly for where something was made. You can’t just slap a “Made in USA” sticker on something that’s made elsewhere, you need to disclose where things come from. Such as, “Designed in USA, parts made in Vietnam, assembled in Mexico” or whatever.

        if you have a brand that is suitable for selling a given item, you’re not allowed another for that purpose.

        Would this apply to product segmentation? For example, Toyota owns the Lexus brand, and they segment their products under those different brands. They reuse a ton of parts though, so your Toyota is much more similar to a Lexus than it is to other economy vehicles in its market segment.

        Walking that line is quite difficult, and I think it largely misses the point. I’m not confused when I buy a ATHEOTS or whatever BS brand they come up, I know I’m buying cheap knock-off stuff. The problem here is how quickly those brands pop up and disappear, and that should be illegal IMO (you can’t just rebrand when your company gets a bad reputation). But maybe that was your point, I’m just saying it’s less a trademark issue and more company restructuring shenanigans.

        To tackle this problem, I’m happy to remove limited liability protections once a company gets above a certain size. But that’s a bit outside the scope of the IP law discussion.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
      [deleted]
      source
      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        It’s old-school liberal, as in closer to libertarian. Trump courted libertarians, and he claims to be wanting to legitimately downsize things.

        Here’s a rough history of Copyright law in the US:

        1. 1790 Copyright Act under George Washington
        2. 1975 - Democratic majority in both houses, Republican President
        3. 1998 - Republican majority in both houses, Democrat President

        So it’s pretty easy to see that both major parties support copyright extension.

        I doubt he’ll do it, but I could see him doing it just to “own the libs” since Clinton was the last to sign a copyright extension.

        source
  • primemagnus@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If Elon agrees with anything… run.

    source
  • S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Be Weird, Download a Car, Generate Art, Screw Copyrights!

    source
  • deathbird@mander.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Now that it interferes with me I’m against it. As soon as it’s absence causes me any grief I’ll be for it again.

    source
  • randomname@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This is the only thing he’s ever done or said that I agree with, even though his real intentions are obvious. We really do need a complete re-writing of IP law, but not from Elon.

    source
    • Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      i came in to say the same thing. IP law rarely benefits the working class. it’s usually a tool used by the likes of disney to bash peasants over the head. it also slows down innovation.

      but the problem is, something like this is supposed to coincide with the end of capitalism and implementation of things like UBI.

      source
      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        yeah i agree with especially the last paragraph. i don’t think abandoning all IP laws today is realistic, as the commercial art/innovation economy still has too much game to gain so it’s gonna take at least 10 more years.

        source
  • Xenny@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Hold on hold on. Don’t mention a damn thing

    source
  • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Isn’t Hollywood going to unleash armies of lawyers on them?

    source
    • anindefinitearticle@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
      [deleted]
      source
      • JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I would love those 2 to have the most expensive trial in history

        source
      • Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Tech companies have more

        I really really want them to prove that

        source
  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    That would be a-m-a-z-i-n-g. Private game servers, fan remakes of shows and movies, I would be over the moon.

    Too bad it won’t happen

    source
  • minorkeys@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    These people are threats our actual lives.

    source
  • alphahowler@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Avoiding tax loopholes and fair taxation for billionnaires could also be considered. Just saying. Otherwise I think that the idea of deleting all IP laws is just wishful (and naive) thinking, assuming people would cooperate and build on each other’s inventions/creations.

    Given the state the world is currently in, I don’t see that happening soon.

    source
    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Otherwise I think that the idea of deleting all IP laws is just wishful (and naive) thinking, assuming people would cooperate and build on each other’s inventions/creations.

      Given the state the world is currently in, I don’t see that happening soon.

      There are plenty of examples of open sharing systems that are functional.

      Science, for example. Nobody ‘owns’ the formulas that calculate orbits or the underlying mathematics that AI models are built on like Transformer networks or convolutional networks. The information is openly shared and given away to everyone that wants it and it is so powerful it has completely reshaped society everywhere on the Earth (except the Sentinel Islands).

      Open Source projects, like Linux, are the foundation of the modern tech world. The ‘IP’ is freely available and you can copy or modify it as much as you’d like. Linus ‘owns’ the Linux project but anyone is free to take a copy of the Linux source code and modify it to whatever extent that they would like and form their own project.

      Much of the software and services that people use are built on top of open source tools made by volunteers, for free; and most of the useful knowledge and progress for human society results from breakthroughs made in the sciences, who’s discoveries are also free and openly shared.

      source
      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Plenty of chemical syntheses are patented. Biological catalysts and precursors are patented every day. No one owns the rights to orbital calculations, because that would be like patenting the concept of a square root — it’s not novel or even complex within the field.

        source
      • alphahowler@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I agree with most of what you say, nevertheless I’d like to underline that my context was broader and not limited to Linux and open source, but to a greater extend to topics like inequality, world hunger, wars, access to infrastructure, education and healthcare for example.

        source
  • drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Good. I don’t like them but clearly IP law is a net negative on our society and peoppe have been argueing against it forever now.

    source
  • Taleya@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Disney vs the tech brats. Jumbish, bring me the popcorn

    source
  • primemagnus@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    As a creative with many friends in the industry, go fuck yourselves! You can pry my IPs from my cold dead fingers.

    source
    • verdigris@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah man, pull that ladder up behind you!

      source
      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        In what sense is a ladder getting pulled up if IP is respected? Anyone can make a new IP, there’s not a limited supply of imagination. You can’t make everyone like what you come up with or buy it, but why should that entitle you to being able to profit off someone else’s work?

        source
  • theblips@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Can’t disagree here, this would be great

    source
  • mhague@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Well a billionaire commanded we argue about copyright law. I guess we need to expend our energy and build enough momentum so that Musk can grab more power during the turmoil.

    Trumpers did their part by arguing about free speech. Time to tap into our issues with IP laws and help Musk too!

    source
  • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Interesting considering the lack of IP law is going to become Tesla’s downfall.

    source
  • Blindsite@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If they did could we use the Twitter bird or Tesla logo all we wanted? I mean yeah let’s get rid of all IP law but get rid of it for everyone. If we want to copy a big corporation then yeah we should do that. Get rid of copyright and trademarks, woo! Publish all that hidden patented material so anyone can produce it. Let’s get creative. You think big corps will get on board with all this?

    source
    • releaseTheTomatoes@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I don’t think Elon is that smart to realize what ‘delete all IP laws’ entails. He probably thinks it in the sense of an anarcho-capitalist.

      Anarchy for me not for thee.

      source
  • void_turtle@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The only sensible thing either of these two have ever said. All knowledge belongs to all humankind.

    source
  • MuskyMelon@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Yeah bullshit they want to delete IP law. Go ahead and copy Square, Xhitter, Tesla, SpaceX, etc and watch them explode.

    source
  • Kolanaki@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Ok. Then you don’t own anything anymore.

    I’ll start making Teslas that don’t suck.

    source
  • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Honestly at this point, poor people have no form of IP protection whatsoever, even before chat GPT it was commonplace for megacorps to just take other peoples work and profit from and now that LLMs are here its outright routine. So why keep that shit when it only benefits the rich.

    source
  • Hadriscus@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    And people flocked to this guy’s social network

    source
    • Ulrich@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      It is not and never was his social network. And the fact that they upset him so badly that he left is probably a good sign.

      source
      • Hadriscus@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I really thought it was, will do some reading

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think Disney might have a few things to say about that.

    Along with every other film studio, record company, publisher, video game studio…

    …engineering firm, architecture firm…

    …pharma company, law firm…

    source
  • artificialfish@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Would be amazing. Legal piracy of everything, generics and knock offs, love it.

    source
  • C126@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    IP is simply a state backed monopoly privilege. This obviously leads to a slowing of innovation and price rises due to lack of (by force) competition. IP is unethical and doesn’t even accomplish what it sets out to do. You don’t need government promises of monopoly rights to create innovation in the marketplace, competition drives innovation.

    source
    • modeler@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      All evidence points to the opposite of your conclusion.

      In places where IP laws are weak or non-existent, very little fundamental or expensive research is done by companies - because the result is immediately cloned by 100 competitors. In medicine, companies will not research and develop new drugs to market unless they can get a return on the investment. Even in places with strong IP laws, development of drugs that can’t produce a return in the limited monopoly window is simply not done (eg with a small number of patients or when 1 course of a drug will permanently cure the patient), so many diseases do not have treatments.

      In countries where there is strong IP laws, innovation jumps because innovating creates new things that people/companies can sell for profit. A personal area of interest is development of small-arms - every single advance from muskets to modern weapons is documented in patents in the US and Europe; the rate of innovation in the 19th and 20th centuries was incredible - and that is via patents and profit in the free market.

      Now, we can have a productive argument about state sponsored research - but unless the state undertakes all research in an economy (which would be staggering overreach), we need IP laws.

      We can also discuss patents on software (which IMHO are not needed because companies do fundamental research without patent laws like in the UK).

      We can also discuss what is the appropriate time that copyright should remain - the Disney law in the US is a ridiculous overreach. It was 25 years or until the death of the author/artist - that worked very well for centuries.

      You don’t need government promises of monopoly rights to create innovation in the marketplace, competition drives innovation.

      source
  • Naich@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The GPL relies on copyright law to keep software free.

    source
    • bss03@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Yeah, we’d have to shift tactics. But, without IP law protections, the hacker community would double down on reverse engineering and binary patching. Debian etc. would still be available, but you’d also see spins on Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Google software based on decompiling, patching, and rebuilding, or just game genie / PC game cracks binary patching based on offset and signature.

      The DMCA would dissolve and encysted data and the expected to be decrypted on the fly (“streaming only”) would just be published fully decrypted.

      It would be a revolutionary shift, but I’m not convinced it would be worse.

      What would be worse is keeping IP law, but only having it enforced by million dollar yearly budget teams of lawyers and not protecting creators of having their works fed to AI and regurgitated as slop.

      source
    • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Making source available suddenly makes it free of copyright

      source
      • Naich@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        No it doesn’t. The GPL provides a license to copy it as long as certain conditions are met. Availability has nothing to do with it.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • HakFoo@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Hey, the broken clock’s right!

    IP law always had a built-in scale pronlem. Without a registration-required copyright model, and probably some sort of mandatory licensing rate system, the sheer logistics of finding and arranging rights made a lot of business models inpractical. (For example, why aren’t modern bookstores just print-on-demand kiosks, or streaming services have All The Content? In large part because it would cost thousands to track down owners and negotiate terms for $1.87 in royalties multiplied by every item in the catalog.)

    This was ignorable for a long time, or even a commercial advantage for firms with access to large, pre-negotiated catalogs. The AI boom created a surprise market of non-incumbents who need to get access to a lot of IP in a streamlined manner.

    If we open the door for bulk IP clearance to grant the AI bubble a stro ger legal footing, it can also allow other, potentially more interesting business ideas to slip through.

    source
  • Unmapped@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Unexpected good elon take. Patents and copyright laws have probably held us back at least 50 years worth in advancements.

    source
    • verdigris@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Except what he actually wants is for AI companies to be free to slurp whatever they want, but for average joes to still have the book thrown at them for pirating the Adobe suite.

      source
-> View More Comments