Olas said:
I didn't say it would keep people from using the technology, I said it would keep anyone from creating any more of it, which is a problem.
It's also not true.
20 years is way more than enough time to irreparably change the world in ways that it cannot quickly recover from, chances are the affects of this ginormous economic and societal collapse would continue to be felt for decades if not centuries afterward. And why are you talking about the entirety of human history anyway? I don't think the people alive at the time when this is happening will care about the rest of human history after their dead.
The importance of the wheel is built upon generations of use and gradual dependency. If you're not concerned with the whole of human history, then why is there even a problem?
Besides, the main discussion here is about the patenting of a technology that has already existed and flourished, so it only seems appropriate that we assume the same here.
Except the concept in question here is still a relative novelty and was even more so when patented, so that's not true.
You don't seem to understand how a theoretical conversation works, which is clearly what this has been since it started.
I wasn't aware that a "theoretical conversation" allowed people to make shit up as they pleased.
that doesn't mean we can't talk about it as a "what if" scenario which is entirely what this discussion has been since it started.
What if scenarios generally assume some basis in reality. If you cannot make a good faith argument for how it would be damaging, then the hypothetical fails.
By human history I mean the history of human civilization, not the history of homo sapiens as a species, but whatever.
As did I. Don't be dishonest.
Allowing the use of wheels under a license agreement would certainly help
You mean, the exact thing that's relevant to this case (And you brought the relevance factor up, so don't look at me)? You mean, exactly what is done with patents? Exactly what would be the whole purpose to patenting the wheel? YES. It would certainly help. I would say that it would mitigate almost all of your arguments, the only one not mitigated being the one about a money drain below, but then, that was my entire argument because this is what a patent would entail.
we never discussed the actual terms of the patent so I assumed it would be a patent for exclusive rights.
All patents are for exclusive rights. At least, within the relevant definition here. There are certain other types of patents, mostly in an archaic sense, which might fit another bill, but for any intents related here, there is literally no reason to assume the rights wouldn't be exclusive. Except so are the rights to those other patents. Patents are exclusive by their definition. A "patent for exclusive rights" is like saying "a horse-powered horse-drawn cart." No, that does it disservice, since you can actually strap something other than a horse to a cart intended for a horse. It's like saying "light-based laser."
Again, it's fine if you don't know what you're talking about. But you went after me for it, and that's not kosher. This is on par with Ken Ham trying to tell scientists the difference between "historical science" and "observational science." The problem here seems to be that I am discussing patents and you are discussing something else.
And so what if they're exclusive? So are the patents related to flight and aerospace and automotives that were mentioned before.
The person holding the patent would still be an enourmous drain on the overall economy (to varying degrees depending on the extent of the royalties paid) without giving anything back, but at least it would still leave the overall economy functional so I'll grant you that.
Prove an enormous drain. I want to see you prove that claim.
All I did was question why Phillips waited over 7 years to do something about it when the Wii has been a well known product that has been making a lot of money.
Actually, that's not all you did, or this conversation would have been a lot shorter.
Ironically Phillips seems to have waited until Nintendo moved on from the device to actually accuse them of stealing the idea.
Would that have stopped people from complaining? When Nintendo was sued over 3D, people complained then. They seemed mad that it was done early in the console lifespan.
It seems very fishy, but I'm not saying that Phillips doesn't have a case.
It sort of does. I would expect a corporation into money to hit while the console was at its hottest, that way they could extort more money.
The entire premise has been fiction since Extradebit brought it up, if you were going to discount the idea of patenting the wheel on the basis that it's impossible, then that should have been your first reply to Extradebit's comment.
Except I brought it up because of specific relevance to your arguments.
Instead you claimed you didn't see the harm in patenting the wheel, thus accepting his premise implicitly.
Which your argument rendered moot, hence I brought it up. But I didn't accept any science fiction premise implicitly or otherwise. Accepting the notion of the patent of the wheel does not mean accepting a dark dystopian monopoly any more than it means accepting the advent of magic ponies powered by friendship.
If we were speculating on the effect of Europeans not taking hold in North America on the native populations, for example, it holds that we speak of the issues that faced the natives such as disease, the introduction of new concepts, etc. It does not hold that we also assume the presence of ancient alien technology that would turn them into a super society, or the capacity of said peoples to develop completely impractical technology from their current technology.
Painting the concept of a super-monopoly as the outcome is every bit as ridiculous. It does not follow from the original idea. Additionally, since the Philips patents were established within a time frame of relative novelty of the concept in question (they're still infant technology), there is no reason to additionally assume that we need to expand the option to "any point along the line." Philips followed the actual, existing laws of intellectual property, so the hypothetical wheel patent holder doesn't get a free pass.
At best, you've forced an additional step here. If the wheel was patented, according to the real-world definitions and limitations on a patent, little would change and it would almost certainly be business as usual. The horror seems to come in when the wheel is patented and that patent is no longer a patent. For example, what happens if the wheel was patented and patent exclusivity prevented actual manufacture during the time period. and that wasn't the original hypothetical you keep telling me I don't understand. Patents have limitations, and if you are going to ignore them (or simply don't understand them), then you're not really exploring the same hypothetical.
You can't call me insane or self-deceptive if you add criteria that are not part of the same base assumption.
