[WAR] ... and AP - now IP

[juan]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 10:05:38 -0700
Sean Lynch <seanl at literati.org> wrote:


> I think patents may have made more sense when it was much harder for
> individuals and small groups to get funding to develop an idea, and
> the only people with the resources to develop them were the guilds and
> state-sponsored corporations like the East India Company. 


	I think you need to re-think that. The guilds and especialy the
	east india company are poster chilren for mercantilism, the very
	system that libertarians wanted to abolish.

	The east india company was the same kind of entity that
	military contractors 'rebuilding' countries destroyed by the
	anglo-americans are. And it was even worse than a purely
	'commercial' gang that monopolized trade - the east india
	company was nothing but the imperial british army invading
	india and other countries of asia.

	


> Patents
> were a way to protect the "little guy." 


	I don't think so.


> Now it's much easier to get
> your hands on funding than it was then, whether it's a small business
> loan, SBIR, venture or angel capital, or crowdfunding.

	And that's probably not true either. Well obviously the
	telecom side of things is better today than it was in 1700, but
	the finance side of thing not necessarily so. 


> It makes the
> "first mover advantage" much more significant when you can move as
> fast or even faster than a large company that has the same idea, and
> those larger organizations tend to be risk-averse anyway.
> 
> It's quite possible I'm biased from working in Silicon Valley, where
> most patents get applied for not for protection from having your idea
> "stolen," but for protection from other patentholders. Or because
> they're seen as valuable by potential investors/buyers, but that
> mostly matters before you have a customer base and infrastructure.