On 9 Mar 2011 08:11, "Cédric Beust ♔" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. >
If you broaden your definition of monopoly from single companies to also include consortiums - groups of companies all collaborating to each take a slice from the same patent pie, then there's at least one glaring example to be found... I speak, of course, about MPEG. I'm sure you can also find other examples in this category. Perhaps BIOS design belongs in that class too, a technology that's now almost synonymous with atrophied innovation. >> >> 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. -- 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.
