> > > Sadly, I think there is a much much much larger group that really just > hasn't even thought of it at all. They are often introduced to > patents in a "you don't want to rob inventors of their due, do you?" > In that regard, is it really any surprise that most people initially > fall in favor of them? > > That's certainly a worthy goal, but nobody has proven that patents actually translate to a better deal for inventors. Quite the opposite in fact, it seems to be increasingly obvious that inventors are being robbed (and worse) by corporations with their patent portfolios and army of lawyers. These are not really people who care about the well-being of inventors in general, their mantra is "increased shareholder value" - regardless of external costs.
IANAL, but my understanding is that if executives of these companies fail to maximize their profits (regardless of the effect on inventors), then they could well be slapped with a suit for failure of due diligence. This is what opponents of the patent system are up against: large, well funded corporations, with significant political lobbying power. In opposition to this, we have an increasing body of evidence against the benefit of patents. If the history of science and engineering has taught us anything, it's that evidence is (and must be) considered above all else. A few facts and anecdotes here: - The fashion industry is remarkably successful, despite the fact that clothes are classed as utilitarian (a debatable point, for many designers), and so can't be patented. - Software innovation is working just fine in other countries, despite the lack of patents. Even within the realm of just programming languages, you only have to look at the rise of Groovy, Ruby, Scala, Python, Erlang, etc. to see this in action. - Linux has spread into places and enabled technologies that simply wouldn't have happened if it had been encumbered by the need to pay license fees. - The entire internet is run on stacks that have their origin in BSD-licensed code. - A main consideration of any venture capitalist in the US now is to check for the existence of patents that would undermine any technology they're considering to invest in, I wonder how many inventors and startups have failed to "collect their due" because of failing at this first hurdle. Yes, innovation still continues in the US, but this doesn't demonstrate that the patent system meets its stated goals, innovation could well be happening *in spite* of patents. The burden must surely be on showing that patents increase innovation, and that they don't simply slow it down, or have no effect (other than to line the pockets of lawyers and trolls). Without evidence-based proof in either direction, it seems illogical and irresponsible to argue for the continued existence of a system that burdens taxpayers with the cost of administering the patent office. Consider an alternative creative group, one in which discussions of copyright, "rights management" and licensing are also as fever pitch: The music industry. Now imagine that music patents were permitted, and that they were largely held by large record companies and music patent trolls. Hands up anyone who thinks that we'd end up with more and better music if just a few key people help patents on "minor scales", "ascending 5ths", "harmonics" and "open guitar tunings"... Just follow the money, look who stands to benefit from the status quo, and ask yourself if you thing those people are genuinely interested in the fate of inventors... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
