Patents - Good or bad? Patents were created to encourage in

>Patents - Good or bad?
Both.
Now fuck off.

File: 2017-02-16_122534.png (59KB, 707x729px)

59KB, 707x729px

MURRICA, FUCK YEAH

Patents are bad, they stifle progress and innovation.

>B-but people wouldn't innovate if they couldn't make money off it.
Yes, they would. Only lazy NEETs without motivation believe that people are motivated by profit. Example, Salke, the inventor of the polio vaccine could have patented it but he didn't and now we have eradicated polio.

Only Jews and those cucked by Jews believe patents are good.

Like this fellow says:
>>58969916
They have their upsides and their downsides.

Clearly if patents were for 'innovation' they'd expire after a few decades, like they do in the pharmaceutical industry.

>>58970067
>>58969909
software patents are bad, because they are made purposelly vague to be more general and include mechanism that are trivial or fall under previous art. You can stifle innovation that way because you can start a new project only to know late in the game somebody will leech of it in some vague sense for a software patent.

Normal patents (with actual mechanism) are OK

>>58970067
Nikolay Zelinsky refused to patent his gas mask, he considered to get money off people's disasters to be immoral. We can only take a wild guess how things could turn today.