you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 177 points 10 months ago* (26 children)

secrecy orders have been imposed not only on inventions affecting military defense but also on those alleged to threaten economic stability, with critics noting that many such restrictions rest on speculative or unproven harms.

But also

The law applies broadly to all inventions in the United States for which a patent is filed or granted (35 U.S.C. § 181).

So if you really do have a society changing invention - one that could upset this capitalist or neoliberal world order - it is your duty to publically release it and not patent it

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    They'll suppress it unless they can make money off it like crypto or "AI".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Bitcoin was publicly released with full code and no pre-mining. It could not be patented for this reason.

    The original creator is still unknown and has never moved their coins.

    This strategy is the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Yo.
    Thanks for curing me of my ignorance, i had no idea. I'm going to have to read more about this! I always thought crypto was cool in theory, unfortunate the state of its practice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    I suspect the “threatens economic stability” is stuff like printers that can produce dollars and the type of paper/thread/plastic material that makes up modern currency. I think people are looking for a conspiracy here when it’s just a logical choice. Some things people shouldn’t have a playbook on how to create.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -26 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    In which case some rich cunt will patent it and nuke the internet of its details

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Worst kind of poster, sees a ratioed a comment jumps in for an easy jab. If I'm wrong so be it but you added less than anyone to this thread. You could have corrected me but nothing was easier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    It's your burden to show when things like that happened. You just said a vague sentence while acting like you're adding to the conversation.

    You weren't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Two wrongs make a right is a very solid footing for an argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Strawmaning is dumb.

    I said you should show when something like that happened. Or shut up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Except that isnt what you said, you said No. Its not strawmaning, I am not defending my point I'm criticising your role in this as useless. My comment and your comment being the two wrongs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Again: coming to the conversation with a baseless accusation is not helpful, unless supported by any evidence.

    It does not deserve anything other than "No.".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It wasn't an accusation, it was a hyperbolic comment on the state of copyright law and corporate shenanigans in a deregulated free market late stage capitalism environment.

    It wasnt deserving of more because you dont seem to be capable of more, you just followed the downvotes and cant justify why.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Good luck scrubbing anything off the internet with even a little social momentum. If people think its good enough to share, then it's never fully getting scrubbed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Do you think there would be significant momentum behind someone posting what amounts to detailed patenting information?

    Presumably someone without a following that absolutely no one that runs any of the social momentum sites would want someone else to have?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    That is not how the internet works

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Sure its not, I am delghted for you that you can still see the fappening nudes but if you think for a second that US hosting companies will be allowed to host content that has been flagged under this procedure you ae dreaming.

    Its not conspiritorial to recognise things can be made very difficuly to find on the public facing web.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    US hosted companies

    Thats like saying you can't sell drugs inside the police commissioners office. Yeah, everyone understands that, doofus. Nobody that wants to release information that a nation state level actor wants suppressed is going to do it within their borders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    This is intentionally obtuse, how is something going to gain traction without being hosted on services that are answerable to the US before someone else were to patent it and start the process.

    Tell people down the pub and upload it to what? Pirate bay? Tiktok?

    It would be incredibly difficult, the law is ripe for abuse.

  • source
  • parent