2011/3/5 Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> > The US natural level of software innovation is X. Due to patents, it is > modified to Y. Is Y larger? Smaller? About the same? > > You claim it appears high, and then conclude this means Y can't be > significantly smaller. This makes no logical sense. > Not exactly. The fact that Y is currently high (higher than any other country in the world) shows that the system is not as broken as people who want to abolish all software patents claim. Therefore, the burden of proof that X is higher is on them.
By the way, the Zuckerberg story shows what would happen in a world without software patents, since none were filed. If you believe the story as it's being told today, Zuckerberg was able to "steal" (or reuse) the original idea without any legal worries, thereby forcing the original authors to have to sue him in order to claim what's theirs. This seems backward to me, but that's basically what the absence of software patents will lead to. The Google / Oracle lawsuits prove that either non-novel patents hold up in > court > There hasn't been any appearance in court yet! That was my point, we just don't know where this is headed, so we can't use this case as a sign that software patents are broken or that they work. Let's discuss this once a verdict is rendered, or a settlement is reached. This might be a few years in the future, but we will probably have learned a lot in the meantime. -- 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.
