Originally Posted by jeremyemilio
And then you throw in plagiarism!
That's hilarious. Plagiarism is about intellectual dishonesty. It's about pretending someone else's words or ideas are your own, which is against the rules in certain contexts and just plain douchey in others.
Speaking of being douchey, if you want to pretend you're an expert you need to venture further than wikipedia. Compiling a list of concepts they file under 'intellectual property' doesn't really constitute research.
And then coming back here and disputing the more nuanced clarifications being offered by someone who has done actual PhD research on the topic is just poor form... especially when your precious wiki page actually just reiterates pretty much all of the same information the guy you are disputing just laid out.
And 'stop copying me' in middle school and the corporate world (which are pretty much the same) isn't generally about plagiarism... it's about things like "Hey, I wore my jeans rolled first... stop copying me!" or "Hey, that's my joke... stop copying me!"
It was foolish then, and it's foolish now. You don't want people copying you? Fine. Keep all the trade secrets you like. But if someone else comes up with a similar idea, then tough cookies; you'll need to compete.
And don't put your ideas out there for the public to see and then get all litigious because someone thinks "You know, that really is a better way of doing this... I'm gonna do that, too."
Imagine what the Olympic high jump would look like if Fosbury had patented his flop! Imagine the money he could charge for the rights.
"Listen kid, yer a great athlete, and you're legs are coiled steal springs... but if you wanna win the high jump, you're gonna have to pay Fosbury what he's got coming to him."
All utter nonsense that the world buys into because everyone dreams that one day s/he will be the one to come up with an idea some afternoon and get to take the rest of life off.
The wiki page does reiterate much of what that guy said but it covers more angles. What was said about patents for instance was partly in point but it was such a small piece of the picture that it was either dishonest it misinformed. It made it sound like patent trolls are the entirety of patent law.
If you spend $10B of R&D to make a device that can be reverse engineered and cloned in within six months, there's not much reason to sink that investment without protection.
I think programming patents often stifle innovations in nonsensical ways. I don't disagree with what you're saying about locking down ways of moving or ways of doing business, but the world of ideas is very big and the laws and protections and incentives vary wildly.
I'm not an expert but I'm educated specifically in this field. It's unreasonable to try to meaningfully try to synopsize trade secrets into a pithy Sherdog retort when it can fill multiple chapters of a text book. So I advise people that are curious to read about it themselves elsewhere.
(I'm in court now, or I might take more a stab at it tbh