Skip Navigation
Technology @lemmy.world
zaxvenz @lemm.ee

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

techcrunch.com

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

Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter (now X) and Square (now Block), sparked a weekend’s worth of debate around intellectual property, patents, and copyright, with a characteristically terse post declaring, “delete all IP law.”

X’s current owner Elon Musk quickly replied, “I agree.”

344 comments

  • This would be disastrous for actual manufacturing because a patent is the only thing that makes it worthwhile to spend a bunch of money upfront to develop a new technology. Unlike with software where you don't have nearly as much up front capital investment to develop something, it costs millions of dollars to get a manufacturing process up and running and in a good enough state to where it can actually work out financially. Without patents, your competitor can just take all of that work and investment and just copy it with the benefit of doing it right the first time, so they're able to undercut you on cost. The alternative is that everyone is super secretive about what they're doing and no knowledge is shared, which is even worse. Patents are an awesome solution to this problem because they are public documents that explain how technologies work, but the law allows a monopoly on that technology for a limited amount of time. I also feel that in the current landscape, copyright is probably also good (although I would prefer it to be more limited) because I don't want people who are actually coming up with new ideas having to compete with thousands of AI slop copycats ruining the market.

    TL;DR- patents are good if you're actually building things, tech bros are morons who think everything is software.

    • In the manufacturing space, people are questioning if patents help them at all. There is no stopping China from copying your design and selling it on Aliexpress. In fact, since you're almost certainly getting your product manufactured in China in the first place, there is no stopping the very manufacturing plant you're using from producing extras and undercutting you.

      Consider this old EEVblog vid about bringing a product to market, and the #1 tip is "don't bother with a patent": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BL1O0xCcY

      Patents have evolved to be useful to patent trolls. That's it.

      That's not what Dorsey and Musk are after, though. They want to kill copyright law because it's inconvenient for AI training data.

    • Getting rid of IP law basically makes mob tactics the only way to ensure compensation for investment in inventions.

    • Research is supposed to be publicly funded

    • Patent documents are rarely useful because they're kept as general and opaque as possible to cover as many innovations as possible. I agree that it's important to protect manufacturing, but patents are not the right way to go about it for at least two reasons: (1) they block innovation by design (e-ink screens are great examples) and (2) they create a huge barrier to entry for new ideas (think about how many lawyers are making a living on this) I disagree with the senders on so many things. But patents were invented in a world of monarchies and craftsmen. Time to go!

      • Patents would be fine if the bar for "innovation" would be much higher, software patents weren't a thing, there was way more research done into prior art, and there would be different (shorter) lengths for patents depending on what industry they target.

        Like, if it's manufacturing or something like drugs where it takes years before you can start making profit, sure, make them 10-20 years. If it' something you make money off of immediately, it should be shorter.

      • Patent documents are rarely useful because they're kept as general and opaque as possible to cover as many innovations as possible.

        I think this is a problem that can be fixed inside of patent system. Make it so by the end of patent life there is "how to build production line of this" manual.

    • it costs millions of dollars to get a manufacturing process up and running and in a good enough state to where it can actually work out financially. Without patents, your competitor can just take all of that work and investment and just copy it with the benefit of doing it right the first time, so they're able to undercut you on cost.

      This argument makes no sense. Manufacturing lines are built all that time for unpatented products, plus a competitor can't just "take all of that work and investment", they will need to put in money to create their own product, even if it's a copy they still need to make it work, as well as build their own production capacity.

      They'll be second to market, and presumably need to undercut price to get market share... This is a very risky endeavour, unless the profit margins are huge, and in which case, good thing that there's no patents...

      If the research is so costly and complex (pharmaceutical, aeronautical,...), then it should be at least partly funded by the government, through partnerships between universities and companies.

      Patents are not a solution.

      • Manufacturing lines are built all that time for unpatented products,

        And cheaply, because the research and productisation has been done by somebody else - this is an argument for patents

        plus a competitor can't just "take all of that work and investment", they will need to put in money to create their own product,

        Not true. One major issue is that many competitors literally copy the product exactly. Fake products wreck the original company

        even if it's a copy they still need to make it work,

        That is 100x easier when you have a working product to clone

        They'll be second to market, and presumably need to undercut price to get market share... This is a very risky endeavour, unless the profit margins are huge, and in which case, good thing that there's no patents...

        The point is exactly that the fake product undercuts the original by a huge amount (they had no investment to pay off).

        If the research is so costly and complex (pharmaceutical, aeronautical,...), then it should be at least partly funded by the government, through partnerships between universities and companies.

        I agree that the government model makes sense for a lot of areas and products. But note that a government won't invest millions or billions in developing a product if another country immediately fakes the product and prevents the government from collecting back the taxes it spent on the research.

        As I discuss above there are lots of criticisms to the current IP laws - adjustment is 1000x better than abolishing a system that has driven research and development for several hundred years

        • if another country immediately fakes the product and prevents the government from collecting back the taxes it spent on the research

          It seems you misunderstand the goal of goverment. Goverment doesn't care if budget goes down, when quality of life goes up. What is the point of not researching and having bigger budget, if it can't buy thing that did not get created?

          And then on goverment level there is no such thing as copyright or patent. On goverment level laws are not some external condition, but something that changed regularly.

          plus a competitor can't just "take all of that work and investment", they will need to put in money to create their own product,

          Not true. One major issue is that many competitors literally copy the product exactly. Fake products wreck the original company

          They STILL need to put in money to create their own product. You know, they can't magic production lines into existance.

          • It seems you misunderstand the goal of goverment.

            This is your opinion of what you want governments to be, not what they actually are.

            What is the point of not researching and having bigger budget, if it can't buy thing that did not get created?

            What a lot of negatives and hypotheticals. All solved by getting a return on investment and having that money to do more things with, including research.

            And then on goverment level there is no such thing as copyright or patent.

            I'd like to introduce you to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) which is an intergovernmental organisation that does precisely what you say doesn't exist.

            They STILL need to put in money to create their own product.

            Sure, but the cost to duplicate the product is tiny compared to researching, developing then creating a production run for it. And this fake normally severely impacts the profits for the inventor.

            But now we're just repeating the same arguments.

            • It seems you misunderstand the goal of goverment.

              This is your opinion of what you want governments to be, not what they actually are.

              I am sorry your country doesn't try or even claim to be social.

              What is the point of not researching and having bigger budget, if it can't buy thing that did not get created?

              What a lot of negatives and hypotheticals. All solved by getting a return on investment and having that money to do more things with, including research.

              So in the end money will be spent on research anyway.

              And then on goverment level there is no such thing as copyright or patent.

              I'd like to introduce you to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) which is an intergovernmental organisation that does precisely what you say doesn't exist.

              And what next? It can't stop any goverment from ignoring copyright or patent.

        • You're utterly delusional. If this system has done anything is to stiffle small, independent producers and consolidate power in megacorporations.

          This is the kind of crap you're defending: https://patents.justia.com/patent/12268585

          This is a random, recent patent from P&G. Read that bullshit, and then tell if if what they're describing isn't the most generic design for a diaper or sanitary napkin ever?

          "One permeable layer facing the wearer, then a semipermeable layer that tries to only allow liquid to move away from the wearer, then an absorbing layer, then an outer impermeable layer"

          Oh boy, if it wasn't for that patent, I'd be pumping 500 million dollars into building a factory so I can flood the market with my cheap fake products! - said nobody when they read that.

          It's hilarious how far removed from reality your ideal of patents is...

344 comments