Just a thought that came to me listening to the most recent podcast, when Joe was once again explaining that the reason patents are important is because they encourage innovation.
Consider the following hypothetical: - I've been sitting on a juicy software patent (e.g. for placing vertical banner ads on web pages to exploit a bug in the human visual system to better sell my product.) for five years. - In the interim, ten other companies have independently come to the same conclusion and use this technique. - Now I sue them, claiming patent infringement. But, seeing how ten other companies were willing to 'invent' this without patenting it, what does that say about the utility of the patent grant in encouraging this particular innovation? Can anyone honestly argue that this invention would never have been made but for the promise of a monopoly granted through the patent system? // Ben -- 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.
