this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
877 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

60056 readers
4010 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The blue LED was supposed to be impossible—until a young engineer proposed a moonshot idea.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Clent@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The company didn't invent it. A person did. The company almost stopped it from being invented. They didn't spend millions inventing this. A person spent tens of thousands of hours inventing it.

That the funding is only available from a company is a result of the patent system. It does not spur development, it perverts it. Any ideas to the contrary are propaganda.

People have been inventing shit longer than corporations have existed. People have been inventing things without any guarantee on return on investment for most of human history.

Capitalism is bullshit and the capitalization of ideas harms humanity.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Maybe they didn't invent it. But he wouldn't and couln't have invented it without them.

Someone would have invented it eventually though.

[–] Clent@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Correct. With or with patents and with or without copyright, it eventually would have been invented.

Edit: Curious if you watched the full video. It clearly indicates that all corporate efforts were heading in an opposite direction and that the path this inventor took was considered to be not profitable and not worth the investment by everyone else working on this. The company he worked for wanted to shut down his research and focus on following the herd. No one else was close to his level of progress and capitalist interests almost scuttled this invention.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, I watched the video. Inventing stuff is obviously very expensive and I doubt anyone could have done it without being financed in some way.

Why are you so sure that the eventually hypothetical inventor wouldn't have patented it? Inventing is expensive and one would presumably want to make the millions spent on the project back and isn't your time worth anything?

I am happy that the invention wasn't delayed considering how much it has changed the world.

[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

I mean, the video even showed that there WERE notable people other than him travelling down the same path, his first few leaps were copied off them, he just figured out the last few himself

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

Yeah it's pretty bad and nobody talks about it. Nobody researches the effects of patents on our global civilization. I suspect the practical role of patents is to actually retard innovation - something gets improved or invented or most of the time just engineered to work better and monopolization or just paperwork makes it too expensive for wide spread adoption. This in turn helps prevents disruptive technology from making large scale investments obsolete - instead of having to adopt and improve your factories you can continue as before because any innovation will be slow and also priced to be around as expensive as existing solutions. Or the patent can just be bought. And even if an inventor has noble intentions, starting manufacturing yourself is a totally different skill set so like most startups often fails and then the patent gets sold off. Innovation becomes a commodity.

This is my logical conclusion but it's speculative. I suspect researching negative effects of patents is a somewhat "taboo" topic for scientists to research.

In regards to climate change this becomes... genocidal. We have hundreds of thousands of industrial processes that rely on fossil fuels or certain levels of energy. With all the before mentioned effects this basically made a timely response to climate change impossible. Every little improvement to existing processes is patented and maximized for profit. Basically we never had a chance.