I think this argument about software patents is too close to home and we need some perspective, maybe looking at something not so close related would help. I've found very interesting this article about the steam engine patents and the industrial revolution. http://mises.org/daily/3280
One little excerpt : "During the period of Watt's patents the United Kingdom added about 750 horsepower of steam engines per year. In the thirty years following Watt's patents, additional horsepower was added at a rate of more than 4,000 per year. Moreover, the fuel efficiency of steam engines changed little during the period of Watt's patent; while between 1810 and 1835 it is estimated to have increased by a factor of five." Hope it helps, Edward. On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 9, 2011 3:52:40 AM UTC+1, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: >> >> Thanks, Ralph, I was getting a bit desperate. > > Read back. He was calling _YOU_ hand-wavy, not the abolish/severely restrict > software patents crowd. > >> >> (in Reinier's message alone: "patents are a drag", "they amount to thought >> crime", etc...). > > Of course they amount to thought crime. I thought that was self-evident: > You're just minding your own business, thinking of something interesting, > and sell it or even just give it away to one person - and you're on the hook > for millions if youre unlucky. At the very least you either (A) have to > spend a boatload of your own time and resources on a courtcase, or (B) you > have to pay off the troll. (this give away/sell bit is why it isn't 100% > equivalent to thought crime, but in this day and age, you share lots of > things, and for the younger generations, if you don't share it, it didn't > happen). > That's the point, really: Without pulling any statistics into this > discussion, I strongly feel the burden of proof is on those who want > software patents, not on those who want to abolish them. The point of a few > others in this thread is that you haven't given us any numbers either, only > the notion that the U.S. has them and appears to be relatively innovative. > As I've been saying, this isn't any proof at all (software patents could be > depressing US innovation rates from an even higher natural level), and as > others have been trying to tell you, there are other markets, and other > times, when there was little to no patent protection and the exact same > argument (innovation sure _seemed_ pretty high) applies to those just as > well as the U.S. of today. > > "They are a drag" is also self-evident: All those lawyers cost money, and > that money is not being used for productive enterprise. The theory by > software patent defenders is that this loss of money is offset by the value > creation inherent in innovation, and that software patents increase > innovation by more than enough to make up for it. Still, it seems fair that > the burden of proof is for the software patent defenders to show that they > do actually increase innovation. >> >> 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. > > The hypothesis is that most patent trolls offer a cheapish license (still > very expensive but calibrated to be just barely payable), which combined > with the potential in damages (compounded by the fact that in the US you are > liable for all damages, not just damages accrued since being notified of > infringement) and the vagaries of civil court cases which can always swing > against you if the opposition throws enough money at the lawyers, means they > virtually always pay it. These license deals include gag orders which means > the information you are asking for simply doesn't exist. > Nevertheless, some examples do exist: > This case destroyed massive amount of economic advantage and caused lots of > headaches: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel-Lucent_v._Microsoft > > There's Eolas v. Microsoft, where a troll ended up with a cool half a > billion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas > There's also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer where > fortunately Jacobsen prevailed (Katzer opened fire by claiming Jacobsen, a > developer of model train software, owed Katzer $200,000 in license fees for > use of patents. Jacobsen ended up winning because Katzer was not a patent > troll in the literal sense of the term: He was effectively selling > jacobsen's software with his own brand, and thus got countersued on > copyright claims). While Jacobsen won, how many hours of his own time were > wasted by this case? The wikipedia timeline spans YEARS. Also, this is why > I'm calling patent cases thoughtcrime: If I write and publish some open > source software to control model trains, I need to first consult a lawyer > and hand over tens of thousands of dollars to check if my idea might > infringe on some patent? That's effectively thought crime, as its just not > feasible for me to do that every time I have an idea or write a line of > software. > This is a good case study for another reason: Katzer's claim was as > ridiculous as they come. There was prior art, he was ripping off jacobsen's > own software, and crapping all over Jacobsen's trademarks. There were other > inconsistencies, and _STILL_ this case took rather long. If this clear-cut > case took this long, why the heck would you advocate leaving the judgement > of (software) patents to the court even more than today? >> >> And Reinier, Ralph is right about your quoting: for some reason, no parts >> of the message you are responding to ever appear in your messages, so we can >> never tell who you're responding to, much less what to. >> > > Thanks for letting me know. Turns out the new google groups interface > doesn't quote at all unless you explicitly click a link to do so. I'll keep > that in mind from now on. > > -- > 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.
