> Luckily if I'm going to use a hammer for some job I don't have to go check to see if someone holds a patent on using the tool in that specific way.
If you buy a hammer at Home Depot, the patent system doesn't affect you directly. (But it might affect the price of hammers.)
If you make hammers and sell them, you might get a cease and desist from the owner of the hammer patent. If they have a valid patent, then you don't have the legal right to produce hammers for sale without licensing the hammer.
If you build a homemade hammer and don't sell it, nobody's going to know or care or sue.
> It makes some sense to patent the invention of the tool but not the use of the tool in the ordinary ways that it is meant to be used.
Again, ordinary use is not the criteria, and it can't be. The idea is to protect the investment of the inventor. Don't forget that I agree the system is unhealthy. But if I spent a trillion dollars to invent warp drive, the use case is obvious, travel far in a short amount of time. You don't get to steal the solution just because everyone has the problem.
> We shouldn't allow whichever company happens to be the first one to use it on some specific type of data to hold a monopoly on using this important new tool in that fashion for the next 15 years.
I completely agree that the patent in the article is crap-tastic. You shouldn't be able to monopolize things you didn't invent, and you shouldn't be able to monopolize things that are too easy to invent. But if someone truly invents something useful, works hard at it, invests time and money, then - according to the patent system - they should get to monopolize it. That's the point of protecting the inventor.
(*and btw, the problem is the rich people & big companies are the ones with the time & money. I agree with others here that that is bad.)
If you buy a hammer at Home Depot, the patent system doesn't affect you directly. (But it might affect the price of hammers.)
If you make hammers and sell them, you might get a cease and desist from the owner of the hammer patent. If they have a valid patent, then you don't have the legal right to produce hammers for sale without licensing the hammer.
If you build a homemade hammer and don't sell it, nobody's going to know or care or sue.
> It makes some sense to patent the invention of the tool but not the use of the tool in the ordinary ways that it is meant to be used.
Again, ordinary use is not the criteria, and it can't be. The idea is to protect the investment of the inventor. Don't forget that I agree the system is unhealthy. But if I spent a trillion dollars to invent warp drive, the use case is obvious, travel far in a short amount of time. You don't get to steal the solution just because everyone has the problem.
> We shouldn't allow whichever company happens to be the first one to use it on some specific type of data to hold a monopoly on using this important new tool in that fashion for the next 15 years.
I completely agree that the patent in the article is crap-tastic. You shouldn't be able to monopolize things you didn't invent, and you shouldn't be able to monopolize things that are too easy to invent. But if someone truly invents something useful, works hard at it, invests time and money, then - according to the patent system - they should get to monopolize it. That's the point of protecting the inventor.
(*and btw, the problem is the rich people & big companies are the ones with the time & money. I agree with others here that that is bad.)