>You disclose what you have done, and in return, for X number of years, anyone who wants to use the method you have published pays you a fee.
Neither am I going to wait X years to use an idea, nor am I going to pay a fee. I want it right here and right now, and nobody should have a right to stop me. I want to build on it, so others in turn can use my discoveries to build even further.
>The alternative to patents is trade secrets.
No, the alternative is that people would realize already that is in no one's prolonged interested to keep discoveries secret, and that collaborative efforts using each others' ideas would lead to exponential growth of technology.
Patents are a detriment to humanity as a whole and its future technological progress, and we need to get rid of them as soon as possible, along with copyright, and erase the whole delusion of "intellectual property" from all books of law. It probably was the worst mistake in the history of mankind.
But don't want to contribute to the cost of R&D. You have fallen into the classic fallacy that because something cost nothing to reproduce, it cost nothing to discover or to build for the first time. At the very least, the people who worked on it deserve to be paid for their time. The people who swept the floor and washed the dishes while they did it deserve to be paid too. Or do you work for nothing? Or do you plan to get paid for what you build on their work?
>You have fallen into the classic fallacy that because something cost nothing to reproduce, it cost nothing to discover or to build for the first time.
I rather think that you are conflating discovery/creation and distribution/usage, which is the classic fallacy people like the content industries try to promote. It's completely irrelevant if the former is hard, costly and time-consuming or a piece of cake. It doesn't have any implications on the latter, which is - as you point out - costless, so it should be promoted and embraced instead of fought against (which is pointless and ultimately futile).
Also, you completely missed my point, which is that I want to build on it so others can build on my discoveries - a loop of mutual positive feedback that would accelerate technological progress by magnitudes. I don't care if some business models no longer work - the advancement of humanity is infinitely more important. Patents stand in the way of that, so we must get rid of them.
I'd like to add that this philosophy is basically the logical extension of the hands-on imperative, a fundamental part of the hacker ethics. Everything that teaches us something about the world and how it works should be free to access and use. If it isn't, make it accessible - by any means necessary.
Neither am I going to wait X years to use an idea, nor am I going to pay a fee. I want it right here and right now, and nobody should have a right to stop me. I want to build on it, so others in turn can use my discoveries to build even further.
>The alternative to patents is trade secrets.
No, the alternative is that people would realize already that is in no one's prolonged interested to keep discoveries secret, and that collaborative efforts using each others' ideas would lead to exponential growth of technology.
Patents are a detriment to humanity as a whole and its future technological progress, and we need to get rid of them as soon as possible, along with copyright, and erase the whole delusion of "intellectual property" from all books of law. It probably was the worst mistake in the history of mankind.