Excrubulent

I don't see it that way. The systems we have in place now are the alternative to just sharing. The secret-keeping monopolistic behaviour of capitalists is preserved by things like the patent system, because they lend the appearance of legitimacy to an illegitimate system.

If you want to see the horror of the patent system, you juat have to look at the millions it killed in the pandemic.

The covid vaccine was developed by public and private researchers and paid for by the state, with a promise it would be made open source to allow anyone to manufacture it and hasten the end of the pandemic.

Bill Gates was one of the fucking vampires who blocked the open sourcing efforts, so poor countries couldn't manufacture it, allowing the pandemic to run unchecked in those places and of course mutate and inevitably make its way back to wealthier countries for yet another outbreak that actually makes our news because it affects us. The patents killed people.

These companies were funded to do it. There's no way they wouldn't have worked on the vaccine otherwise. The pandemic showed us what governments can do when a crisis actually threatens the status quo and they're forced to do the bare minimum of solving a problem. We didn't need patents for it, just the will.

Also, what does it mean to "tolerate" the existence of minorities? What exactly are we "tolerating"? Tolerance in every other context means to accept deviation from a standard or some negative outcome.

Framing anyone's mere existence as a thing to be "tolerated" is to imply they are deviant or negative.

That's where the paradox of tolerance loses me. I don't think we should be tolerant in general. I think we should make value judgements about what is good or bad and act accordingly. Every society does this, and pretending we're above it all and completely neutral is dishonest.

And if the "tolerance" is of differing views, diversity of thought is also good, not a bad thing to be tolerated.

It's simple: we identify behaviour that is bad, like bigotry and hatred, and we say no. We're not rejecting it because it's merely different, and to accept that framing is to accept the cry-bullying of fascists. We reject them because they suck, and we don't owe them shit about it.

Yes, the companies have a reputation to protect, but it's also just a standard hype-cycle. If you pay attention to tech history these things always go in cycles like this.

Whether the tech is actually useful or not doesn't actually matter. What matters is whether you can convince investors to fork over the cash with a shiny presentation.

The tech industry has basically habituated to surviving on selling us bullshit through hype cycles. I think it's become dependent on them.

More or less what I was going to say. The covid vaccine was developed by public and private researchers and paid for by the state, with a promise it would be made open source to allow anyone to manufacture it and hasten the end of the pandemic.

Bill Gates was one of the fucking vampires who blocked the open sourcing efforts, so poor countries couldn't manufacture it, allowing the pandemic to run unchecked in those places and of course mutate and inevitably make its way back to wealthier countries for yet another outbreak that actually makes our news because it affects us. The patents killed people.

These companies were funded to do it. There's no way they wouldn't have worked on the vaccine. The pandemic showed us what governments can do when a crisis actually threatens the status quo and they're forced to do the bare minimum of solving a problem. We didn't need patents for it, just the will.

And we would be free to reverse engineer and lift their stuff without people defending their right restrict us because otherwise they wouldn't make it.

The vast majority of serious innovation - not just incremental improvements like this patent represents - is done on public resources, not private. The patent system allows corporations to swoop in, monopolise the patents and keep us from free access to knowledge.

It's so predictable too. Did someone do something indefensible and you don't want to face up to it? Try blaming the victim today! Ask your propagandist if victim blaming is right for you.

The point being made in the video is that the second patent doesn't correctly reference the prior art - the numbers are wrong - and it is not substantially different. The patent office didn't do their due diligence.

As for the first, it's not just code or the staggered idea. There is quantitative research that determines a specific and non-obvious methodology. (Edit: that's my opinion, but it would be subject to interpretation whether something is obvious - I could easily be wrong)

The video critcises that patent for being overly broad, but there's no need to attack it because it's expired anyway. If you want to, here's the specific link: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5653925A/en

My broader critique of patents isn't that they fail to stand up to their own rules - although they frequently do - but that the law itself runs counter to innovation.

If you're saying this one is obvious, there is maths and research involved, not just "hey lay it down like this.

The basic concept is easy, the implementation details are not.

Yeah, it seems like it's the fear of legal action that's stopping them, but this information might change that.

Also, I mean "bad patent" according to the standards of patents themselves. I don't actually think patents are good for anything.

A hypercompetent autocract whose only concern was the perfect management of his city was the only unrealistic thing about Discworld.

Yup. Robert Reich posted something that ended with "Take a moment to breathe, then let the resistance begin."

And like, buddy, I'm sorry to say, if your resistance is only just beginning, then you are resisting the wrong thing and you will be ineffective. You should be fighting the entire empire, not just the unmasked pieces of it.

The election is your chance to ask for your preferred enemy, but if you don't get it, your job doesn't change.