What's the worst that could happen in a world without Copyrights and Patents?

I came across this idea in an article and thought what's the worst (realistically & most probably) that could happen in a world without Copyrights and Patents?

Our civilization evolved through cycles where old ideas and technologies are the building blocks on which new ones are formed.

E=mc^2 didn't come out of the vacuum with no prior knowledge to mathematics and physics layed out generations ahead of it.

Our individual lifespan is too short to accomodate the civilization we enjoy today had we insisted not to copy the work and ideas of our ancestors.

It's who we are as a species, through copying, refining, & building on top of ideas by others, is one of the reasons where we are today.

Yet today, we're hindering our innate nature for advancement just to cater for this one argument : "why should I put the hard work & resources just to see someone else using my ideas without me benefiting".

A world without patents

The idea of someone taking offense of you copying his/her inventive way of problem solving something (fire, irrigation, building, etc..) in the dawn of humanity is absurd.

In the name of money, our industries will most probably re-invent themselves and adjust to accomodate and profit in a world without Patents and Copyrights, so why not save our worries for the likes of SOPA, PIPA,ACTA, etc... instead?

If humanity give-in to Patents and Copyrights, slowly but surely we might be enslaved to a patent that covers something we can't simply live without.

Lack of originality, that's what..

It wouldlead tomultiple companiesmaking the same product, saturating the market and forcibly lowering the price of those products, which in turn lowers profit, which keeps people from actually inventing anything because there's no money to be made.

It would lead to alot of people copying products, theft of game engines etc. because nothing would be protecting something as a property.Dy_WarriorsXoXo

But isn't this a perfect example of patents stifling creativity? Maybe someone has and idea on how to improve on a game engine, but because of copyrights and patents they can't build on the game engine but rather must build a new one from scratch. Patents stifle creativity, they unduly give certain individuals the sole right to improve a product and shrink the product market.

It wouldlead tomultiple companiesmaking the same product, saturating the market and forcibly lowering the price of those products, which in turn lowers profit, which keeps people from actually inventing anything because there's no money to be made.

Necrifer

Multiple companies might try to make the same product, but the market determines which ones are successful at it. If there is a flooding of the market then there will probably be a shrinking as the unsuccessful companies fold. Also, there's an innate copyright in invention. If you make a new technology, say a kitchen appliance like a toaster that does something that no other toaster does, then every other company will have to research how to make that toaster, and even once they get it to market they will not have worked out all the kinks that the original inventor already has.

[QUOTE="Dy_WarriorsXoXo"]It would lead to alot of people copying products, theft of game engines etc. because nothing would be protecting something as a property.theone86

But isn't this a perfect example of patents stifling creativity? Maybe someone has and idea on how to improve on a game engine, but because of copyrights and patents they can't build on the game engine but rather must build a new one from scratch. Patents stifle creativity, they unduly give certain individuals the sole right to improve a product and shrink the product market.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Dy_WarriorsXoXo"]It would lead to alot of people copying products, theft of game engines etc. because nothing would be protecting something as a property.-DirtySanchez-

But isn't this a perfect example of patents stifling creativity? Maybe someone has and idea on how to improve on a game engine, but because of copyrights and patents they can't build on the game engine but rather must build a new one from scratch. Patents stifle creativity, they unduly give certain individuals the sole right to improve a product and shrink the product market.

You still can't sell an unauthorized product under a name brand. I can't assemble a toaster in my basement, forge a Kitchenware logo, and sell it as a kitchenware product, but if kitchenware does come up with an all new appliance I can take it apart, figure out how it works, reverse engineer it, and sell it under my own brand name. If I make a better product I will make profit, if I don't I will not.

people would mass produce sh*t products under the same name-DirtySanchez-

Without copyrights people won't be able to make money off of their products. Without making money they die out, meaning you no longer get the products you want. People can't afford to make products for free.

There was plenty of innovation and creators making a living by creating for centuries before the concept of copyrights and patents was developed.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Dy_WarriorsXoXo"]It would lead to alot of people copying products, theft of game engines etc. because nothing would be protecting something as a property.thegerg

But isn't this a perfect example of patents stifling creativity? Maybe someone has and idea on how to improve on a game engine, but because of copyrights and patents they can't build on the game engine but rather must build a new one from scratch. Patents stifle creativity, they unduly give certain individuals the sole right to improve a product and shrink the product market.

Right, so if I have an idea on how to improve a game engine I can just take the code, make the improvements, and release a new version, right? And I'm not talking about letting people use it to make money without permission, as in just taking the engine and making a game without paying for the use of that engine. That's more akin to stealing, what I'm talking about is allowing people to improve a product and sell that improved version without aritificial restrictions like copyrights.

[QUOTE="-DirtySanchez-"][QUOTE="theone86"]

But isn't this a perfect example of patents stifling creativity? Maybe someone has and idea on how to improve on a game engine, but because of copyrights and patents they can't build on the game engine but rather must build a new one from scratch. Patents stifle creativity, they unduly give certain individuals the sole right to improve a product and shrink the product market.

theone86

You still can't sell an unauthorized product under a name brand. I can't assemble a toaster in my basement, forge a Kitchenware logo, and sell it as a kitchenware product, but if kitchenware does come up with an all new appliance I can take it apart, figure out how it works, reverse engineer it, and sell it under my own brand name. If I make a better product I will make profit, if I don't I will not.

That would not be a good world to live in. If I invented something and couldn't patent it and some schmuck found out and made the same thing and managed to under-sell me on it... I'd be pretty pissed.DJ-PRIME90

Then I'd have to ask why he can sell it at a lower price, and why you think you should be protected from having someone sell the same product at a lower price.

Copyright covers a multitude of products. It protects the photographer from someone else using their pictures in an unauthorized way. It protects a writer from having his words from being used by everyone and their brother. Copyright gives creators of pictures, books, art and other creative creations the right to do with their creations as they wish and to profit from them. If anyone could use someone else's work, we would not have new books, calenders (all those pics of cute kittens, dogs, the planets or any other subject are sold by the photographers for said use), paintings etc. I don't know about anyone else here, but as an amateur photographer, I do not want my pics used without my permission. I set up the shot, I chose the settings and I pressed the button, not some Joe Blow half way across the US.WhiteKnight77

Why do we need to protect a photographer from having his pictures in an unauthorized way? If some Neo-Nazi group uses a photoographer's work then it shouldn't be reflective of the photographer. Writers already have their words used by everyone and their brother. Why is it so bad for someone to use a writer's creation to tell an original story? What's so bad about using, say, the Star Wars universe as a setting for my own original story?

We would have new stories, there's no support for this idea that all creativity would suddenly cease. We would also have people writing original stories within established settings.

People could not just sell your photographs without permission. I can't just take your work, slap it on a calendar, and sell it for my own personal profit. As I said in a previous situation, that's stealing and that's not what I'm talking about.

Copyrights I won't touch on because I do believe the amount of time they are good for are too long.

But patents?

They're not just there to protect larger companies, but also start-ups and independent inventors. Without a patent on your item what is the point of inventing if you can't make any money on it? For smaller companies, a larger company will just copy your product and use superior brand name or the fact they have a faster/cheaper manufacture rate to drive the start up (who had the original idea) out of business. Also what is the point in employing more engineers if they aren't going to make you more money without patent revenue?

Patents also only last 20 years before they go into the public domain (in the US anyway), I don't think thats too long as it helps promote new, better, and cheaper ways of solving a problem rather than being able to take a known solution and let the best advertisors win.

Complete and utter chaos in all sorts of media.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]Copyright covers a multitude of products. It protects the photographer from someone else using their pictures in an unauthorized way. It protects a writer from having his words from being used by everyone and their brother. Copyright gives creators of pictures, books, art and other creative creations the right to do with their creations as they wish and to profit from them. If anyone could use someone else's work, we would not have new books, calenders (all those pics of cute kittens, dogs, the planets or any other subject are sold by the photographers for said use), paintings etc. I don't know about anyone else here, but as an amateur photographer, I do not want my pics used without my permission. I set up the shot, I chose the settings and I pressed the button, not some Joe Blow half way across the US.theone86

Why do we need to protect a photographer from having his pictures in an unauthorized way? If some Neo-Nazi group uses a photoographer's work then it shouldn't be reflective of the photographer. Writers already have their words used by everyone and their brother. Why is it so bad for someone to use a writer's creation to tell an original story? What's so bad about using, say, the Star Wars universe as a setting for my own original story?

We would have new stories, there's no support for this idea that all creativity would suddenly cease. We would also have people writing original stories within established settings.

People could not just sell your photographs without permission. I can't just take your work, slap it on a calendar, and sell it for my own personal profit. As I said in a previous situation, that's stealing and that's not what I'm talking about.

You can write your own Star Wars stories. Fan-fiction is a thriving genre. You cannot sell those stories however. And that's fair.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]Copyright covers a multitude of products. It protects the photographer from someone else using their pictures in an unauthorized way. It protects a writer from having his words from being used by everyone and their brother. Copyright gives creators of pictures, books, art and other creative creations the right to do with their creations as they wish and to profit from them. If anyone could use someone else's work, we would not have new books, calenders (all those pics of cute kittens, dogs, the planets or any other subject are sold by the photographers for said use), paintings etc. I don't know about anyone else here, but as an amateur photographer, I do not want my pics used without my permission. I set up the shot, I chose the settings and I pressed the button, not some Joe Blow half way across the US.worlock77

Why do we need to protect a photographer from having his pictures in an unauthorized way? If some Neo-Nazi group uses a photoographer's work then it shouldn't be reflective of the photographer. Writers already have their words used by everyone and their brother. Why is it so bad for someone to use a writer's creation to tell an original story? What's so bad about using, say, the Star Wars universe as a setting for my own original story?

We would have new stories, there's no support for this idea that all creativity would suddenly cease. We would also have people writing original stories within established settings.

People could not just sell your photographs without permission. I can't just take your work, slap it on a calendar, and sell it for my own personal profit. As I said in a previous situation, that's stealing and that's not what I'm talking about.

You can write your own Star Wars stories. Fan-fiction is a thriving genre. You cannot sell those stories however. And that's fair.

It's not that patents are bad, it's just that the system is completely broken and was recently made even worse. (first to file) There needs to be drastic reforms in terms of what can be patented. The idea that someone can patent a programming language or a piece of software is ludicrous.

Though I suppose a serious case could be made to end copyrights or drastically reduce the amount of years that a copyright can exist.

It's not that patents are bad, it's just that the system is completely broken and was recently made even worse. (first to file) There needs to be drastic reforms in terms of what can be patented. The idea that someone can patent a programming language or a piece of software is ludicrous.

Though I suppose a serious case could be made to end copyrights or drastically reduce the amount of years that a copyright can exist.

QuistisTrepe_

Truth is first to file really won't change anything. Mainly because the rest of the world is already first to file and the main reason behind (to reduce the amount of interference filings) weren't a problem anyway. And even though its first to file now if there is a question if the idea was stolen then they will have a derivation proceeding to prove who invented it.

[QUOTE="Dy_WarriorsXoXo"]It would lead to alot of people copying products, theft of game engines etc. because nothing would be protecting something as a property.theone86

But isn't this a perfect example of patents stifling creativity? Maybe someone has and idea on how to improve on a game engine, but because of copyrights and patents they can't build on the game engine but rather must build a new one from scratch. Patents stifle creativity, they unduly give certain individuals the sole right to improve a product and shrink the product market.

There obviously needs to be a balance between the two.. Too ridiculous patents and it gets out of hand, but no patents its just as bad..