On a related note, an interesting piece of news: the FTC is asking the USPTO to move against patent trolls<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110308/01101513393/ftc-puts-patent-trolls-notice.shtml> .
-- Cédric On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Edward Gabriel Moraru < [email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > -- 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.
