[kataklasm]

The practical implementation of IP? Sure, that's debatable. But the concept of IP is rooted in favoring progress. The thought process being, that if one's intellectual work can be copied and reused and modified and what not without issues, why should anyone invent things anymore? Just wait for the next person to do it and then copy their work, that's way less effort than inventing things yourself. IP aims to protect progress by making sure inventors have actual incentive to invent stuff. They way it's implemented is fundamentalst flawed, I agree, but the concept itself? I'm not so clear on that

[vrganj]

The Soviet Union, for all it's faults, had a fair bunch of scientific and technological breakthroughs without relying on IP.

Sure, one person gets rewarded more with the IP system. But at the same time, that breakthrough then can't be built upon by others.

Overall, I think it does more harm than good because of how it monopolizes technologies and ossifies development.

I think free sharing of knowledge will always beat intellectual stinginess.

[wqaatwt]

> fair bunch of scientific and technological breakthroughs

Outside of military technologies they had massively fallen behind the west by the 80s. Without the western tech they licensed or copied they were permanently stuck in the 50s. Even their crappy cars were licensed copies of cheap European cars from the 60s.

When it comes to consumer electronics, vehicles and a bunch of other things they were comically behind. So it’s really not a good example..

> monopolizes technologies and ossifies development.

As bad as it might be empirical evidence shows that historically a superior system has never existed (it might be feasible but everything that was tried underperformed).

[shimman]

What absolute bollocks. Human ingenuity and innovation is only limited by the greed of elites, not due to something as damaging as "IP."

Good grief. All one has to do is look at how humanity has consistently progressed due iterating on what has existed is how we progress, not whether some corporation that wants to rat fuck us all for a few pts in share value.

[wqaatwt]

> progressed due iterating on what has existed is how we progress

Progress was extremely slow until the 1800s. Coincidentally corporation and modern capitalism in general developed around the same time. Of course I’m not necessarily saying it was the main or direct course since it isn’t exactly possible to create an experiment comparing it to other systems (of course that was tried an failed completely in the USSR, Maoist China and similar places)

[stackskipton]

Progress was slow until industrial farming was developed and more people could be freed from just trying to grow enough food to feed themselves.

Capitalism was side effect as well.

[wqaatwt]

And how and why did that suddenly happen?

> was side effect as well

A side effect of what exactly?