On Tuesday, August 9, 2011 3:53:39 AM UTC+2, Spencer Uresk wrote: > > Plenty of ideas are good in theory (ie, the interface) but don't seem > to work out in practice (the implementation). I think this describes > software patents. You can probably get me to agree that some form of > software patents isn't a terrible idea in theory, but I don't think > I'll ever agree that coming up with a good implementation is humanly > possible. >
This. The current software patent system is actively spawning parasites (patent trolls and friends), and rarely will it actually protect those who need it. All reform proposals I've ever heard are either (A) no better, usually because the suggested protections to try and keep trolls out are far too easily circumvented, or (B) simply not feasible, such as any suggestion along the lines of 'We need a less stupid Patent Office'. A capable USPTO requires a _lot_ of money, so who's going to pay for all that, and how do you ensure that this money doesn't either stifle innovation itself (i.e. because requesting a patent becomes too expensive), or becomes a source of unfair influence (if you leave the business of rating patents up to a conglomerate of big IT corps, they're going to end up making it suboptimal for startups, which traditionally pick up the lion's share of innovation). I believe Software Patents should be abolished not because the theory behind them is unsound. I believe this to be the right course because it's the least bad choice amongst a number of bad choices. It simply causes slightly less damage than all alternatives. If someone comes up with a reform idea that seems feasible and does more good than harm, I'd join that camp immediately. > There is a counter-point against even that hypothetical argument - > open source software. Almost every piece of technology you use owes at > least some of its functionality to open source software, which is > pretty much the opposite of patented software. I'm not an open source > fanboy, and I certainly appreciate the role and value of proprietary > software, but the fact that open source software is at the heart of so > much we do is compelling evidence that innovation in software can (and > does) happen on a breathtakingly large scale without the need for > software patents. > > This is just a hunch, but, perhaps FOSS projects are more popular than normal because of the patent system. It's much more difficult to sue the _creator_ of a FOSS project for patent infringement; some bigcorp might join in, and the last thing a troll wants is to be challenged in court as that might render their patent permanently unenforceable. There's virtually no money to be had. It's even worse for PR than usual, etc, etc. As a creator of a project, the reduction in risk when you FOSS your library vs. charging a moderate price for it is possibly convincing some programmers to go the FOSS route vs. trying to sell it if patent risk wasn't a concern. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/7p5hQXSgL7gJ. 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.
