There’s nothing stopping Dorsey from releasing all of his IP under a public license. Same with Elon who jumped on this bandwagon.
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
212 points (96.5% liked)
Technology
2484 readers
486 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
From your link: “not all Tesla patents are open source.”
R u sum kinda thinkin machine?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes please
Yes, now that rich people want to break the law to create AI we should just make it legal for them.
Yes. Because individuals stand to gain far, FAR more than corporations if IP law disappeared.
No, this has enormous implications to break the monopolies of many companies and supply chains. Companies like Broadcom and Qualcomm only exist because of their anticompetitive IP nonsense. This is everything anyone could ever dream of for Right to Repair. It stops Nintendo's nonsense. It kills Shimano's anti competitive bicycle monopoly.
Every frivolous nonsense thing has been patented. Patents are not at all what they were intended to be. They are primary weapons of the super rich to prevent anyone from entering and competing in the market. Patents are given for the most vague nonsense so that any competitive product can be drug through years of legal nonsense just to exist. It is not about infringement of novel ideas. It is about creating an enormous cost barrier to protect profiteering from stagnation by milking every possible penny from the cheapest outdated junk.
IP is also used for things like criminal professors creating exorbitantly priced textbook scams to extort students.
All of that goes away if IP is ditched. The idea that some author has a right to profit from something for life is nonsense; the same with art. No one makes a fortune by copying others unless they are simply better artists. Your skills are your protection and those that lack the skills have no right to use their wealth to suppress others. The premise of IP is largely based on an era when access to publishing and production was extremely limited and required large investments. That is not the case any more; that is not the world we live in. Now those IP tools are used for exactly the opposite of their original purpose and suppressing art and innovation.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Businesses were innovative long before patents and copyright became a thing. In fact, evidence shows that society was more innovative without patents and copyright than with.
For your reading pleasure:
"Do inventors lose because of this? Probably."
This calls out the exact problem with this then glosses over it. With big companies able to now swing in and steal any idea this doesn't work. Times have changed, your idea can be ripped away and sold to everyone while you get nothing. But the mindset of this article is that "there are more copies of your idea out there so it's cheaper for everyone." This ignores that the inventor has less motivation to actually invent. Author have less motivation to create. That is the problem.
I feel like people would think very differently if they created something creative and were trying to sell it or start a business. This just reeks of people wanting free stuff without understanding. This is Trump's Tariffs all over again lol.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I hate agreeing with a CEO.
Don't worry, he's probably being disingenuous and likely has ulterior motives.
load more comments
(2 replies)
🏴☠️
And that is bad why...?
Intellectual property, the sheer concept that an idea, or color, or shape can be owned at all is absurd if you really think about it. There is certainly room for a fair compromise of appropriate and proportional compensation for the actual inventors or creators of something, but our current system of intellectual property and patents is silly and hostile to human nature.
Current IP law may be too over reaching but I do like the idea that if an artist writes a song, or paints a picture others can't just make copies and sell it. Similarly, if someone makes some invention its nice that there is an incentive to publish the technology openly for everyone to understand how it works, and in return they get to profit from their discovery for a set number of years.
Some design patents and patent tolls are obviously bad, but I think for the most part its a decent system. What compromise would you propose?
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Jesus christ. I'd lose my job immediately.
Lets just delete the greedy!
This is not about being greedy. This is about incentives. IP enables billions of jobs.
And makes research investment-worthy.
Exactly. Without IP, scientists and researchers could only make a living through government funding. And that means governments also fully control the research and development. A free market needs IP. It's fundamental.
load more comments
(11 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
No
This is literally just so they can scoop up everything for AI. You don't get to just do whatever you please with someones work.
Also doesn't the GPL use IP law for enforcement of copy left?
I'm not saying I'm against getting rid of IP law, writ large, but I gotta agree the only reason a billionaire would say so right now is to remove legal barriers to training data for their AI models.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)