Does /g/ know of an open patent system similar to open source

What stops you from using GPL with music?

>>52265607
Well, I thought that patents were separate pieces of IP and the GPL was not applicable to them. Dunno about music.

File: your-guide-finding-free-creative-commons-images-and-other-media-online.1280x600.jpg (115KB, 1280x600px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1280x600px

You might want to check out the Creative Commons licenses. Specifically, the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International one seems most similar to the GPL.

ITT: nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about

>>52265702
welcome to /g/, newfriend

>learned about copyleft

>uses the term IP

>>52265339
https://creativecommons.org/choose/zero/

>>52265607
>>52265680
>>52265811
those aren't patents

>>52265811
>>52265874
I don't see something specifically made for patents though. There needs to be an extension that protects included patents from abuse, misuse and theft. The problem with patents is that they can be taken, modified, and then born anew as completely new patents.

Just get the patent and make it available to everyone. A patent only applies to commercial use, you can make a patented technology for personal use, it's just when you sell it that it's a problem.

>>52265874
you're not a patent

but you are a troll

>>52266008
I don't want to do only that though. I want to create an open IP framework so that companies can't rape people through patent price hikes.

>>52266044
how am i a troll? they all were talking about copyright, and the OP was asking about patents.

>>52265339
Patent is like copyright.
It's up to the 'owner' how it's used.

The major plus that patents have is that they are a lot more reasonable time-wise. MP3 for example is patent free now.

That GPL-Patent idea you propose wouldn't mean shit anyway. Patent holders love the status quo.

>>52266077
OP was talking about IP, which primarily a copyright issue.

>>52265339
In at least some places you can't legally renounce your intellectual property over your creations. That is as dumb as it sounds.

>>52266351
No, the institutions that employ the patent holders love the status quo. I own a patent that I developed and I get 5% of the money because the university that employs me gets the rest because I used $200 dollars worth of materials to make patentable drug. They get 80% of the money, my PI gets 15% and I get 5%. Such is life in corporatist America.

Anyway, I was thinking of creating an open patent system that would allow drugs and devices to be made cheaper because they are unencumbered by patent law. Companies wouldn't be able to patent them, but they also wouldn't have to hire an army of lawyers to fight through existing patents. That would be the draw.

>>52266369
Then he should clearly use the word copyright, not the unrelated word patent.

>>52266446
I meant patents but mixed in intellectual property.

>>52266409
Sounds like a great idea anon. Could someone give me some resources regarding patents, Intellectual Property, Copyright, Copyleft, differences between those, etcetera. I feel that I don't know enough on those things to participate this discussion and want to educate myself.

>>52266462
>I meant patents but mixed in intellectual property.
You really need to listen to Stallman about his idea that the term "Intellectual Property" is designed to be a distortion.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

>>52266492
I don't either, and now I regret making the thread.

>>52266409
You're proposing what is similar to the Socialist model.
The Soviets and East Germans typically made patents free to used, and paid inventors an estimated percentage of profits using state funds.

Companies owned by the state (like the University that employed you) wouldn't get direct money for the patent, but would benefit as all patents were usable by them.

>>52266492
It's such a good idea it should be patented!

>>52266521
I call myself a "socio-communist" but even when I hear that I get suspicious. Do you know if this model worked in East Germany or the USSR? I wouldn't let it be freely used; it would have the limitation that it can't be used and not acknowledged, and it can't be modified without consent of the original inventor.

>>52266492
Here is a resource:
>>52266500

But okay I will try to explain Trademarks, Copyright and patents correct me if I'm wrong.

Trademark™: Ownership of a name/brand if for example the name NASA™ is trademarked (don't know if it's the case but just an example) it makes it illegal for some troll to start a company that is named NASA and sells Dildo's/vibrators because the name already is trademarked.

Copyright©: Protects a copyrighted thing to be copied (or derivative works be made) without permission of the copyright holder. Copyleft allows the making of copies as long as you provide the same or compatable licensing(GPL)

Patent: Protects the patent holder that other people take the same idea and make money out of it. But is temporary and eventually end up in the public domain.

Don't take what's said above as true and researched because I don't know shit, I just hope some anon comes along and gives me a good explanation. Okay now I have some questions what're the differences between copyright and patents? What is this: ®?

*facepalm
Please research the basics at least. There is 1 person that partially grasps the concept.