On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:52 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote: > So far in this lengthy shred, despite claims that facts justify patents, all > I've seen is facts that show how non-beneficial software patents actually are > (which have been waved off as not relevant) but no facts that justify them - > just assertions purported to be facts. > > Thanks, Ralph, I was getting a bit desperate. > > I pointed out the frequent "hand wavy" aspect of the anti-patent rhetoric at > the very beginning of this thread, and sure enough, what followed was filled > with assertions without much data to back it up (in Reinier's message alone: > "patents are a drag", "they amount to thought crime", etc...). I even tried > to steer the debate with concrete questions ("When was last time you heard > about an obscene amount of money awarded to a ridiculous patent?") but these > were promptly ignored.
I've given you plenty of facts and references that have plenty of data in them and I've pointed you at people with experience as well. You ignored all the links to these facts and only commented on my commentary. More facts. Microsoft didn't receive its first software patent until 1988. However, in the 1990's they started patenting like crazy. Why? Here is a quote from a memo Bill Gates wrote in 1991. "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then they have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can." Granted, this is just one guy's opinion, but it did lead to one company becoming the dominant player in the patent game. And these statements were made when Microsoft had a monopoly on Windows and close to a monopoly with Office. Somehow they managed to get into that position without any patents. >From http://www.researchoninnovation.org/swpat.pdf "We find that over 20,000 software patents are now granted each year, comprising about 15 percent of all patents. Compared with other patents, software patents are more likely to be assigned to firms, especially larger U.S. firms, than to individuals." "This means that increases in the appropriability of software should lead to greater R&D intensity. We find that this is not the case, however. Firms that increased their software patenting relative to their overall level of patenting tended to decrease their R&D intensity relative to other firms." "Yet the software industry was highly innovative and growing rapidly well before software patents became commonplace. Nominal investment in software grew 16 percent per annum during the 80s (and 11 percent per annum during the 90s, Grimm and Parker 2000). This innovativeness is important for two reasons. First, in interpreting results below, the growing use of software is an important factor. Second, given this history, it is not at all clear that patent protection was essential for innovation in this industry." Will you ignore these facts as you did from the paper I previously referenced? Ralph -- 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.
