2011/3/8 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> > You certainly win the red herring award of the day with this email, > congratulations! > > But fine, let me put my observation in terms that might be more familiar to > you. > > You were basically saying that since we have A => B, then !A => !B. Which > is obviously not true. > > Now replace A with "no patents" and B with "creativity". > > You're claiming: Patents => Creativity
I'm claiming: No Patents => Creativity Collectively, everyone is saying: * => Creativity Creativity happens, it will always happen, the motivation behind creativity is rarely financial, so people won't stop creating if they think they aren't going to be paid enough. (actually, studies typically show the opposite to be true, that financial reward tends to suppress creativity, though it can act as an enabler by allowing people to "buy" time in which to be creative) Creativity is a grass roots thing that will happen whatever anyone does in the patent field. But patents *will* affect the transition of those ideas to a marketable product. There are two possible forces here: 1. Something is created, the inventor doesn't follow it through out of a belief that it'll just be copied and he/she won't profit (though they will get the buzz from seeing their invention go public) 2. Something is created, the inventor doesn't follow through for fear that it'll infringe another patent and he/she will lose their house through legal fees. There's also all sorts of interactions between the creators and their managers, venture capital, etc, etc. but that just takes us deep into the realms of feedback loops and chaos theory, not easy to reason about. Of these two scenarios, it seems to me that #2 just has to be the most harmful, and the most likely to suppress effective innovation... > -- > Cédric > > > 2011/3/8 Kevin Wright <[email protected]> > > >> >> 2011/3/8 Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> >> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Kevin Wright >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Has everyone seen this yet: >>>> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html >>> >>> >>> Miroslav did a good job showing that the fashion industry is not exactly >>> innovative, but I'm more interested by your logical claim: >>> >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> If you assertion were true, all it shows is that indeed, creativity will >>> happen without patents, but it certainly doesn't show that creativity can't >>> happen thanks to patents. >>> >>> A bit like saying that hot chocolate tastes good without sugar, >>> therefore, it can't taste good because of sugar. Guess what, it tastes >>> better with sugar! :) >>> >>> >> As someone who finds hot chocolate in all forms to be far too sickly sweet >> for my taste, I'm far more a fan of straight espresso's, and so have to >> disagree with you in this analogy. >> >> I would however point out that many health experts are pointing to the >> love of artificially sweetened food and drinks in the USA as being a >> significant factor in obesity, and that this represents a severe long-term >> health problem for the nation as a whole. With a staggering associated >> financial cost that everyone must pay through their taxes and insurance >> premiums. >> >> Are you saying, then, that software patents are good in the same way that >> extra sugar in hot chocolate is good? It may seem tastier at first to the >> person who's drinking it, but ultimately everyone suffers as a result... >> >> >> >>> -- >>> Cédric >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Cédric > > > -- 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.
