• ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    If it were a misunderstanding, why do we always see a spike in innovation once a patent expires? According to capitalist ideology, isn’t competition the best that could happen, instead of having an unlimited monopoly for 20 years?

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think their point was that in a way, patents are supposed to be more equitable because it allows the inventor to meet their basic needs by being the one to invent the patent.

      There’s also the argument that while innovation skyrockets after a parent opens up, there would be less incentive to invent new things if Walmart could just copy it for cheaper the day after you show how you make it.

      Or people would be super secretive with instructions for how to make their products that innovations could die with their creators since they have no incentive to release it.

    • Fleur_@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Patents are a good idea in every form of society. People are motivated by material rewards. By ensuring a creator is entitled to their labour and that some scum fuck corporation isn’t going to steal it, society incentivises innovation. The problem isn’t patents, it’s corporations abusing the system to serve their own interests because public institutions (such as the patent office) aren’t strong enough to push back.