On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:00 AM, Kevin Wright <[email protected]>wrote:
> >> That's certainly a worthy goal, but nobody has proven that patents > actually translate to a better deal for inventors. > Now, here is an angle that hardly ever pops up in these discussions, thanks for bringing it up. And I am certainly more sympathetic to discussing this than the tired (and incorrect) "Software patents stifle innovation" (the US seems to be innovating just fine, despite the flaws of its system). > > - 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. > > Not so sure about this. It seems to me that a crushing majority of the commercially successful software innovations that have been happening for the past decades have originated in the US. Note that I inserted "commercially successful" here, since it's the only one that really matters in this debate. Obscure inventions that never generate any money are not impacted by software patents since nobody bothers fighting over them. Also, I think you will be hard pressed to find examples of countries that are 1) active in the CS field and 2) don't have some sort of software patent laws (the US and Europe are out, obviously, which doesn't leave much). > > - 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. > > Linux was indeed invented outside of the US and what was one of the first things that its creator did when Linux started taking off? Move to the US. > 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. > Fair enough. All I'm saying is that the system can't be as broken as abolitionists are claiming, the solution to this problem cannot be "Let's abolish all software 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. > This is where we differ. Innovation is happening, so the system is working, although maybe not optimally, therefore the burden of proof is on people who want to change it. They need to prove things will improve if we listen to them, and so far, they haven't produced much besides endless circle jerk discussions on Hacker News and Slashdot. -- 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.
