What is your personal opinion on patent law and the concept of intellectual property? I think a lot of us here are freedom fighters who lean a little to the libertarian side. But on the other hand, I could understand the need for people to get paid for their research.
The older I get the more I think patent law might just be 100% bullshit. Perhaps no discovery should be the exclusive property of anyone. The idea of intellectual property seems to only serve people who aren’t very good at making sales or providing customer service. In fact, patent protections might do more harm to society than good. Perhaps I’m preaching to the choir here? Think of all the money that is made in this community by ripping off chemistry patents -synthetic D9 anyone?
People should be able to recoup their investment and profit. They shouldn’t be able to use IP as a bludgeon to prevent innovation or improvement, or to bleed companies dry
I think we need to consider forced licensing terms for copyright and patents
the whole system impedes actual business and innovation. It’s a legal sham. When a company can get rich, not by selling a valuable product or service, but by suing everyone else over patents, is that not telling enough? Entirely different ideas about this (patents) in Asia, and not surprisingly centers of innovation are flourishing there.
Interesting take (by head of Peter thinks investment fund)
On how the current state of intellectual property, funding mechanism for scientists and Epstein collide. He met Epstein b4 it came out he was a pedo
“If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” - Jefferson
Some asshole patents building homes out of bricks and lumber. Now you can only build your house out of mud and straw or you’ll get sued.
The big bad wolf comes around and blows your house down. But the pig that patented brick houses is fine, and he is amused by your struggle.
Now we all go and kill the pig that holds the patent so we can all build brick houses and make everyone safe from the wolf, without fear of being sued into bankruptcy.
The End.
I don’t advocate murder, but I do advocate the opportunity for safety for all.
I’m sure there’s a nonviolent way to accomplish the same ends. What are your thoughts?
I think the way patents are awarded leaves a whole lot to be desired. Typically, it is just a really poorly done peer review, there are clear tendencies to award patents to entities that already have a few through the system.
The situation is exacerbated by oftentimes poorly written applications and omission of prior art which makes it hard for the examiner to discern if the IP is non-obvious.
A hundred years ago in Germany a team of chemists actually independently verified if the IP worked or not. Nowadays, at least in the US, the typical level of chemistry knowledge is that of a college dropout, if even that.
I can only speak of chemical IP, but there’s a lot out there that has been applied for and granted for the sole purpose of deterring competitors. And you cannot really license what doesn’t work anyway.
I am sure shit gets even crazier when looking at other fields. I recommend the writings of Lawrence Lessig and anything that has to do with Amazon’s “one-click patent” from the turn of the Century.
Yes, it seems there is a lot of patent applications for ideas that were never validated in reality. Also, it is amazing how some groups have the balls to just apply for a patent based off of decades of prior art. I’m thinking of Compass Pathways trying to patent psilocybin manufacturing as an example, using a method that was over 50 years old.
Chemical IP has changed somewhat over the last couple of decades. It used to be that an application, through the use of Markush Structures, could claim thousands of NCEs (New Chemical Entities) while only providing actual examples of only a handful structures, and usually not the hardest examples.
That seems to have changed and now you better try to prove the toughest cases.
Worst is when a huge structure space is claimed with questionable chemistry and basically locking someone out whose chemistry actually works!
For whatever it is worth, for better or for worse, chemical IP does help maintain some kind of Status Quo between the big pharmaceutical players, cartel like, really.
