[rapht]

I'm not a fan of patents, but in that case, it's not like some bigco seeking to perpetually extend monopolistic rights on some product - the inventor is alive, they made what seems like a genuine contribution to the world, and that contribution is very concrete and complete - not some hollow vaguely generic not directly usable "design".

So it's actually a case where patents are a good fit: the inventor gets to decide the life of their design (and make a bit of money out of it) before anyone can use it freely.

[bmacho]

> I'm not a fan of patents, but in that case, it's not like some bigco seeking to perpetually extend monopolistic rights on some product - the inventor is alive, they made what seems like a genuine contribution to the world, and that contribution is very concrete and complete - not some hollow vaguely generic not directly usable "design".

If the inventor keeps the prices too high, then it is basically the same as ensuring that the public can't have it. That's not good. Inventors and investors should be compensated, and cheap alternatives from other manufacturers should appear.

[OfSanguineFire]

That might be good for the inventor, but that whole thinking that the inventor’s rights trump the rest of the world’s is pre-modern. As we have seen from the last couple of decades, it is always better for consumers when the “official” product exists alongside some cheaper version that one can order from e.g. Aliexpress.

[dbalatero]

Owning a harpejji is not exactly a human right or anything. Let the guy get some money off the massive R&D and creativity that went into the instrument before kicking it over to Behringer to release the $300 clone.