You mean like the guy who invented the super soaker?
Or the guy who invented the aero press?
Or that time sears ripped off an inventor - and patents ensured they had to pay? [1] Or that other time when they misrepresented the value of a patent [2] - in that case the absence of the patent would mean there was nothing to have stolen.
Seriously, patents only really became terrible in the late 80s and 90s when the US gov. started allowing patents on what were functionally just concepts rather than actual inventions saying how something worked, and allowing patents on obvious uses of computers by virtue of "on a computer".
Patents on mechanical inventions are literally the only way for the "common man" to be able to make money off an invention. Without the patent rights:
* you have to be able to raise the capital to produce the device (corporations and the already rich have that - amazon was kept afloat solely because Bezos was already a billionaire).
* You have to price your device to pay off the capital expenditure, in addition to all the other costs
* You have to do that while also undercutting businesses that already have the manufacturing capacity to replicate your invention.
In the absence of patent protection on your invention you have little likelihood of recovering your investment as an individual.
Think of it this way: copyright says that copying something without/in contravention of a license is not legal, and so you can be sued. That allows things like linux to succeed - you can't make a product that uses it without contributing back. Patents are the same thing for inventions - someone doesn't get to copy your work (the act and work of inventing) without your consent.
Or the guy who invented the aero press?
Or that time sears ripped off an inventor - and patents ensured they had to pay? [1] Or that other time when they misrepresented the value of a patent [2] - in that case the absence of the patent would mean there was nothing to have stolen.
Seriously, patents only really became terrible in the late 80s and 90s when the US gov. started allowing patents on what were functionally just concepts rather than actual inventions saying how something worked, and allowing patents on obvious uses of computers by virtue of "on a computer".
Patents on mechanical inventions are literally the only way for the "common man" to be able to make money off an invention. Without the patent rights:
* you have to be able to raise the capital to produce the device (corporations and the already rich have that - amazon was kept afloat solely because Bezos was already a billionaire).
* You have to price your device to pay off the capital expenditure, in addition to all the other costs
* You have to do that while also undercutting businesses that already have the manufacturing capacity to replicate your invention.
In the absence of patent protection on your invention you have little likelihood of recovering your investment as an individual.
Think of it this way: copyright says that copying something without/in contravention of a license is not legal, and so you can be sued. That allows things like linux to succeed - you can't make a product that uses it without contributing back. Patents are the same thing for inventions - someone doesn't get to copy your work (the act and work of inventing) without your consent.
[1] https://thehustle.co/sears-patent-infringement
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1989/09/18/s...