Something went entirely wrong posting that. Shame I can't edit it :( Stop reading after the ;) smiley, for what its worth.
On Sep 5, 10:35 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > All your points are easily proven wrong. > > Nokia's research budget is gigantic, far, FAR larger than apple's. > Recently they released a new OS of some sort (Meebo? Meego? It sucks, > nobody cares about it). Europe has no software patents. Clearly the > lack of software patents does not stifle research budgets. I grant you > apple is doing a far better job at it, but I don't see what patent law > has to do with this. That's like stating that buying more oranges from > mexico leads to reduced crime (there is a very strong correlation > between those two, but rather obviously there's a third factor > involved there!) - you need to prove one is the cause of the other, > you can't just point at correlations. > > You argue: If software patents didn't exist, companies may not bother > with research. Well, nokia has the biggest budget and they live on an > entire continent without software patents. > > Trying to kill chinese knockoffs based on patent law just doesn't > work. The chinese government doesn't care. Indeed, iPhone knockoffs > exist in droves, and the (patented) basics of the iPhone UI are > showing up all over the place. Just walk into any korean, japanese, or > chinese high street electronics shop and have a look around. While you > can make an iPhone knockoff, what you cannot do, is load Apple iOS on > it. Because of copyright law, not patent law. Recreating something > like iOS is expensive and requires experience and vision. You also > want to take a slightly different approach if only to increase the > size of the total pie both your company and Apple will be partaking > from. Hmm, sounds a bit like android, no? Which was doing nice and > innovative things until some company decided to bother them with such > patent gems as "If a piece of code wants to do something, check if it > has the permission to do so. If not, don't run it. If it does, allow > it to run". Wow. I bet oracle spent 5 million researching that one. > Seriously, how can you not call that kind of patent attack a complete > farce of justice? > > You argue that Apple and Tivo are seeing a reduction in knockoffs > because of patent law. Actually, there are plenty of knockoffs, and > the only obvious reducer in knockoffs is copyright and trademark law, > which is nobody (or at least I'm not) arguing should go away. > > I can't tell much difference between Tivo's UI and that of XBMC > either, by the way. > > I've got a bunch of arguments based around patent law being > sufficiently close to thought crime that even if there was proof it > did more good than harm, it still should be tossed, but I'll stick to > the "helps software innovation" part of it. Proving that patents hurt > more than they help is easy enough ;) > > There still is innovation, but there is no proof that the innovation > that is happening is being boosted by the US patent system. For > example, a large amount of startups don't patent anything, yet they > appear to be one of the main drivers of innovation. I can point out a > number of cases where patent law is actively stifling innovation, but > I can't think of any situations where a company in the business of > software innovation is uses software patents to get rid of a > competitor that's actively trying to shut down that innovation, for > example by making a knockoff of some sort. > > In the mean time, I can point at various scenarios where an innovative > company _WAS_ shut down or slowed down due to a knockoff of some sort, > and where apparently the patent system should have helped, but didn't. > Such as 90s and early 00s microsoft using embrace-and-extend on a > bunch of technologies. Note that the only major case of knock-off > legal protection that I can think of, sun vs. microsoft, did not, > AFAIK, involve any patent law. That was about licensing and especially > trademarks. More often than not, an innovate company is minding its > own business and is being slowed down considerably by a non-innovative > company who is using patent law to threaten them into accepting a low > buyout bid or simply chase away investors. > > Then there's the silent and immeasurable whatifs. How many people who > had a great idea decided not to bother because they didn't want to > risk patent lawsuits? This knife cuts both ways, of course (how many > companies decided not to bother trying to undercut an innovative > company, because they had patents on their side)? which makes this a > bit of a wildcard in the discussion. However, just assuming that > patents are doing more good than harm here is something I vehemently > oppose: When in doubt, make less laws, not more. The burden of proof > is on those supporting patent law. > > Going back to some of your points: There ARE iPhone and iPod Touch > clones, especially iPhone clones. These aren't successful because > being the first mover is important (you can be first, cheapest, or > best. If you're none of those three, you've got no chance). Also, > patent law basically doesn't cover china. Which so happens to be cheap > knockoff central, so your main point there just doesn't add up at all. > I'm guessing the iPod touch clones are hard to find in particular > because making such a device for that price with that kind of hardware > is a lot more difficult than it sounds. They also can't call it an > iPhone or iPod, legally, as that'd be breach of trademark law. > > I have claimed I couldn't think of any benefits. That doesn't mean I > said there aren't any, nor that finding a single beneficial use of > them justifies their existence. Patent law almost comes down to > thought crime. In order to do it right, any innovator has to splash > down about $20,000 dollars to hire a patent lawyer to check the new > product against the list of millions of software patents. It's > basically impossible not to breach any of them, and getting a license > going would cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars more. Patent law > advocates need to be making an extremely powerful case that they are > most definitely doing more harm than good. In practice the situation > is reversed: There's more proof out there that they hurt the system > compared to them helping. > > In the mean time, > > On Sep 5, 5:44 am, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > There is absolutely no proof that the current US patent system (which > > > lets you patent software, and which is based around granting every > > > patent and putting the burden of overturning them on the court system > > > and any future defenders of patent lawsuits) is good for innovation. > > > I'm going to play the devil's advocate a bit here but it's pretty obvious > > that a lot of innovations are happening in the US software market despite > > the current patent laws, so claiming that there is no proof that it's good > > for innovation is certainly questionable. > > > Hardware and software innovation *is* happening on a daily basis, from the > > likes of Apple, IBM, Google, etc... > > > The question is more: "Would there be *more* innovations if it weren't > > possible to patent software ideas", and this is a much more open problem. > > > It's pretty clear to me that in the absence of any software patents, we > > would have seen iPhone and iPod Touch clones coming form the major US > > manufacturers barely a few months after Apple released these devices. > > Similarly, a lot of software features (such as Tivo's UI) would have been > > copied to death pretty much right after they came out. > > > This might sound like an obvious plus, but you need to realize that in the > > absence of software patents, maybe these companies would simply never have > > come up with these ideas in the first place because they wouldn't see the > > point in investing millions of dollars in researching and developing > > innovative ideas that will be copied at no costs by competitors as soon as > > they become public. > > > I'm not taking any side here and I have very often been on the receiving end > > of stifling software patents, but I think the two sides of this debate are > > often glossed over by eager software developers who don't bother thinking > > this problem through. > > > -- > > Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
