• finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    More like he wouldn’t be able to sell his solution to others, but yeah I think Patents on simple processes and mechanisms are dumb, especially certain software and firmware.

    • BigPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Imagine if you had a hammer and decided to use it to hit a nail and then someone came along and said “I see you’re using my method to build a house! Pay up!”

      Well, you can’t patent something like that!

      Imagine you open up a game engine, any engine, and decide you need to point to an objective so you decide to use an arrow. A game company says “You’re using our method to identify objectives! Pay up!” and that one is a unique mechanic?

      How long has humanity been using arrows to point to things? How can you patent it just because it’s a digital arrow?

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            19
            ·
            2 months ago

            No, the very premise of that user’s analogy is that he isn’t profiting from it. If somebody invented hammering nails literally this year and a company came in selling it as a product without permission, then it would be comparable. It reads as if he failed to read my comment entirely but still replied with multiple paragraphs.

            • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              A patient on hitting a nail with hammer is ridiculous if it’s your framing or theirs.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                16
                ·
                2 months ago

                Countless buildings would never be built if you didnt invent hammer and nails, being paid royalties for a few years by large businesses who make use of it seems pretty fair.

                • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You have absolutely zero knowledge of history, I’m embarrassed for you.

                  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 months ago

                    We’re very clearly not talking about history, we’re talking about the ridiculous hypothetical of if Hammering Nails to build Houses was patented today.

                    I can understand why you’d think that was fucking silly, my original response to it was “jfc this guy”

        • BigPotato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The ludicrousness is the point. “Capture a creature in a ball”… How close is that to Red Dead’s lasso? Could Nintendo patent capturing a creature with a rope? Does anyone hold that patent yet? No, it would be silly to try to patent something like that - yet at one point I’m certain it was someone’s “technique” while everyone else was jumping on the horses back like Breath of the Wild.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago
            1. This thread started with a general statement about patent laws with a glaring innacuracy that it applied to noncommercial applications and in perpetuity. That is what I argued against. I fully support PalWorld.

            2. If that were Nintendo’s justification they would lose instantly. You can patent and/or claim intellectual property for very specific named designs, but you cannot do so for vague narrative concepts. Example: PokeBalls in various colorschemes is a go, but “a ball that capture creatures” is not good enough to patent.

        • webadict@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Hey man, I’m future you. I here to give past me a warning. You keep looking like a complete fool and when you look for evidence to support your false claims, it turns out you were wrong the whole time, so you built a time machine to stop yourself. Anyway, the warning is to only use 1.11 Jiggawatts, as you miss the return time to stop yourself from looking foolish by about a day. Good luck!

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            Hey, further future you, due to the nature of paradoxes your specific version doesn’t exist as a result of this timeline; and thank fuck for that because you’re a total loser.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        idk, but the user above me made a general statement about patent laws and I responded in kind.