I am strongly convinced that the possession of ideas and creations of the intellect is not possible. In my opinion, only physical things can be possessed, that is, things that are limited, that is, that can only be in one place. The power or the freedom to do with the object what one wants corresponds to the concept of possession. This does not mean, however, that one must expose everything openly. It is ultimately the difference between proprietary solutions, where the “construction manual” is kept to oneself, and the open source philosophy, where this source is accessible to everyone.

As the title says, I would oppose this thesis to your arguments and hope that together we can rethink and improve our positions. Please keep in mind that this can be an enrichment for all, so we discuss with each other and not against each other ;)

  • trias10@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes it is, it has to do with abusing the spirit of a law. Patent law exists to protect innovation so as to encourage it. Patent trolls do the opposite.

    Similar laws which were designed to allow people in a community some measure of voice in that community have been abused for years to enact Nimbyism. That’s also abusing the spirit of the law.

    Humans are just awful cunts.

    • kklusz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Designing a legal system is hard. It is not immoral to conduct such stress tests on a legal system

      • trias10@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure it is, because they’re not doing it to stress test but to rent-seek. They’re not coming from an altruistic place of helping build a better system, but from greed, and a desire to earn money without doing much work.