On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Ralph Goers <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. > You gave plenty of facts that didn't have much to do with the debate. > > Granted, this is just one guy's opinion, but it did lead to one company > becoming the dominant player in the patent game. > FYI, Microsoft is one of the dominant players in that game, but not the top one (I'm sure you can guess which company is, and this company has been #1 in patents filed for 16+ years). > 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. > Well, yes, I'm not sure why there would be a relationship between patents and monopolies. Most monopolies happen without patents. Which is an interesting observation, by the way. If the patent system were so evil, we would be seeing a lot of companies holding aggressive monopolies in various fields just because their competitors are being paralyzed by patents, and therefore unable to compete. I can't think of one monopoly supported by a software patent, actually. > Will you ignore these facts as you did from the paper I previously > referenced? > Yes, since they are again, not relevant, but it looks like I'll have to explain why. These figures conflate R&D budget with innovation, which is obviously bogus. Just because a company invests millions of dollars in their R&D doesn't mean they're going to be innovative. -- 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.
