If I Could, I Would... (Master Thread)

[Definitions]

Why are pills different to tablets, or tables chairs, xerox machines, rollerblades, velcro, bandaids, kleenex or Scotch tape?

I just imagine that chemistry is a total hit or miss luck game. And each try would be very expensive.

[yuneeq]

Because everything would be cheaper/free.

Would you rather:

a) Wait 100 years for technology to become cheaper/free

or

b) Have all the technology available right away with the option to wait 17 years for patents to expire and then get it cheaper/free

[Torkay]

I don’t think the op is saying that this is a realistic idea he’s saying that a utopian society for him would be one that everything was free bc ppl couldn’t monetize their inventions.

 In my opinion it’s not a realistic view that without the ability to profit off ideas anything would have advanced close to the state of where things are today.

If the idea if someone owning intellectual property seems wrong. do you think there’s a difference between owning an idea you created or owning your house?

[mmgfarb]

Because everything would be cheaper/free.

The only problem is that nothing would ever be very well made or be very good at doing whatever it was supposed to do since nobody would actually be making money from it. Do you know how much it costs to develop and produce an iPhone?

[aygart]

I just imagine that chemistry is a total hit or miss luck game. And each try would be very expensive.

Well then, quite frankly you don't know what your are talking about. "Imagine" was a good word to use. That explains a lot about where you are coming from here.

[Yehuda57]

I just imagine that chemistry is a total hit or miss luck game. And each try would be very expensive.

Huh? Why would chemistry be any more hit or miss than any other field or invention?

If anything it's more of an exact science than anything else. Do you think these guys are sitting in labs throwing darts at the wall to decide what ingredients they're going to use to tackle alzheimers? I mean sure, there have been lucky breaks (penicillin), but medicine is the result of years of calculated studying and tinkering.

[Definitions]

I’m goin to go out on a limb and guess your are a huge Bernie sanders supporter.

I wouldn't know myself. I'm not into politics at all. I haven't voted in my life, I don't even know how to.

[Definitions]

Or the opposite is true and is educated and believed all the crap his professors told him.

Nope I'm not educated. I haven't gone to college in my life.

[Definitions]

Without the motivation of money there would be very little innovation.
Even the open source projects would be very limited as a lot of it is built on infrastructure or ideas created by non-open source companies. Imagine Linux in a world without Intel, Microsoft, etc. It would be a shell of its current self.

Possibly a good point. I'll keep it in consideration.

[rs242]

Well then I apologize, you really are just curious. I thought you where just trolling. Listen to what the others are saying, they are exploiting things to you. Get out there more listen to people like ben Shapiro and mark levin. Good luck.

[Definitions]

Okay, so why would someone spend that if they will not profit from it?

Projects that require that amount of money and time wouldn't be done alone. Therefore each person will contribute as much as they want until eventually you have enough collective time and money.

[Definitions]

Try billions of dollars.

Ok

[Definitions]

If you think that it would happen but take longer then without patents we would still be at the level of advancement from 100 years ago.

Ok, so what?

[Definitions]

What would be their incentive to do that?

They don't lose anything, I don't think someone who has invested time into something wouldn't already keep some form of documentation of experiments. It's just a matter of passing it on. I don't think that requires incentive.

[mmgfarb]

They don't lose anything, I don't think someone who has invested time into something wouldn't already keep some form of documentation of experiments. It's just a matter of passing it on. I don't think that requires incentive.

Of course it does. Action, in any form, requires incentive.

[aygart]

Why not is not enough of a reason to get someone to do something.

[Yehuda57]

Let's say you were right, and banning patents (I'm excluding copyrights as evidently you have no clue what the difference is) yielded the and results we have today. Why would you choose that way? What are the pitfalls of the "for money" system?

[aygart]

Ok, so what?

If you are fine with that doesn't mean anyone else is

[Definitions]

Would you rather:

a) Wait 100 years for technology to become cheaper/free

or

b) Have all the technology available right away with the option to wait 17 years for patents to expire and then get it cheaper/free

Obviously I would pick option b (is it 17 or 70 years?). But that's good for something like medicine that would still be useful after it becomes available. But what about other things that by the time it comes out there would be better ones that make it useless?

So I guess you do have a point by things like medicine. I'll keep that in mind.

[yelped]

Obviously I would pick option b (is it 17 or 70 years?). But that's good for something like medicine that would still be useful after it becomes available. But what about other things that by the time it comes out there would be better ones that make it useless?

So I guess you do have a point by things like medicine. I'll keep that in mind.

Why do you think there will better ones available after 17 years? Because one company patented the idea, so they had to come up with a better way to do it, in order to remain competitive and make money.