Has everyone seen this yet: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
<http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html>Another very successful industry in the US, and one that's emphatically denied patent protection, where innovation is driven by the need to stay one step ahead of your competitors instead of by working around the patents of others. It's not proof, by any stretch, but it's certainly a very convincing demonstration that creativity will happen in spite of patents, and not because of them. On 8 March 2011 08:30, Russel Winder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 12:09 -0800, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > [ . . . ] > > > > I hadn't really thought about it but it doesn't seem very relevant to > > the current discussion, unless we can come up with objective ways to > > state that "things were better before we had software patents". That > > seems like an impossible task, so I'd rather focus on what's happening > > today by simply observing that the system seems to be working okay for > > the most part. > > The problem here is that only the high profile cases are being talked > about. High profile cases involve Big Money. Big Money is where the > patent system works because it is all about offensive and defensive > patents as a business tool. It has absolutely nothing to do with > protecting "the small guy" and allowing "the lone inventor" to licence > his invention. In fact it never was about that, letters patent used in > this way have always been about the state protecting monopolies for > their friends -- e.g. their use by Henry VIII. > > The cases you need to know about to see that the whole software patents > in the USA system is fundamentally broken are the one you never hear > about -- and will never hear about unless you are personally involved > because of the "gagging orders" that are generally involved. > > OK so let's have a data point. Exhibit A. > http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=26aJAAAAEBAJ&dq=linked+list > > So now everyone who uses skip lists in any software that has a presence > in the USA is required to pay licence fees to Ming-Jen Wang. > > I bet though there are very few people paying the licence fee that is > legally required? Two of the reasons: > > 1. Ming-Jen Wang does not have the resources to enforce the patent. I > assume he is waiting for someone in the Big Money set to buy it off him > so they can enforce it. e.g. GIF. > > 2. The patent will never stand up in court due to prior art. > > The real problem is USPTO issues patents willy-nilly and abdicates > responsibility to the courts. USPTO take no responsibility for > researching the application. At least the UKIPO do proper searches > (though they obey the European ruling you quoted in an earlier email > which says no software patents -- though the EPO have started issuing > some mainly due to pressure from Big Money, which means EU and Asian > corporates as well as the obvious USA ones). > > So in the end the lawyers make money. For the conspiracy theorists, the > USA software patent system is by lawyers for lawyers. The fact that > they have turned it all into a business tool for Big Money is a happy > bonus that means they make more money. > > It all comes down to resources. If you have them then you are in the > game, if you don't you aren't. Lone inventors are not in the game. > > -- > Russel. > > ============================================================================= > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: > sip:[email protected] > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder > -- Kevin Wright gtalk / msn : [email protected] <[email protected]>mail: [email protected] vibe / skype: kev.lee.wright quora: http://www.quora.com/Kevin-Wright twitter: @thecoda "My point today is that, if we wish to count lines of code, we should not regard them as "lines produced" but as "lines spent": the current conventional wisdom is so foolish as to book that count on the wrong side of the ledger" ~ Dijkstra -- 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.
