this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
125 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37720 readers
689 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I’m not sure I buy this argument but I will admit that I’m not extremely familiar with the hoarding or sharing of trade secrets prior to patents. Any recommended reading on this topic? If your logic is correct, patents should be as short as practically possible to encourage information sharing.

I don’t see how this applies to copyright though. Are you concerned people will create works and then bury them? I don’t see the risk here.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago

On patents and lost knowledge:

https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/09/07/history-patents-can-teach-us-world-without-might-like/id=151264/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradivarius

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificio_de_Juanelo


If your logic is correct, patents should be as short as practically possible to encourage information sharing.

Modern patents require the disclosure of information prior to being granted, so anyone can access the knowledge to build on it from the start. The patent owner's rights are enforced after the fact, by punishing anyone who tries to make money off the invention without a license from the owner. Their term is generally reasonable for mechanical inventions, with a maximum of 20 years, and the cost of maintaining the patent grows exponentially. Main problems are the term, and whether a patent should be granted at all, when applied to non-mechanical items, like software, medicines, organisms, etc. which don't follow the same pattern of investment vs. incentive.


Copyright, was initially intended to let publishers have some time to get their investment back, between printing, distributing, and selling copies of a book. Initially, in the 18th century, that was set to 28 years. However, instead of staying true to that intention and adapting to new forms of distribution, with the internet being the latest one, Disney lobbied like crazy to get to the current "until author's death + 70 years" term:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

That, is a complete mockery of the initial rationale. With digital distribution, Copyright should've shrunk to a fraction of the original 28 years, not grow even longer!

Are you concerned people will create works and then bury them?

The concern is that people, particularly publishers paying an advance to an author, would not want to do that if they didn't have some assurance on the return of their investment. Nowadays, something like 1 or 2 years after publication, would be more than enough, even for films, which get most of their revenue during the first few weeks after release. Games follow a similar pattern, when they don't require an ongoing subscription.