On Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:49:02 PM UTC+2, Oscar Hsieh wrote: > > > Personally I am in the #2 'fix the damn thing' camp. Pattern cannot be all > bad, just take a look at USA. >
But they can be bad enough that they do more harm than good. Which is precisely the case (IMO). > > "The core public policy behind the patent system is widely ignored, even > though it’s extremely simple and really quite clever. Patents are more than > just a simple incentive for people to develop new inventions — they’re > actually an *exchange* between inventors and the public. In exchange for a > time-limited monopoly on their inventions, inventors must fully disclose the > invention itself in the patent specification, and agree to release their > work into the public domain once their monopoly runs out" > > Yes, that is the de jure stated aim of patent law. Name me one piece of patented software or process technology where the fact that I can look at the legalese-heavy near gobbledygook full disclosure is in any way or form useful. This is the central point to this entire discussion: The aims of the patent system sound nice in theory but when you look at the practical effects, it just doesn't pan out. Instead a boatload of negative effects DO pan out, which is why, even though the goals are lofty and the stated purpose all sound rather nice, they should be abolished. -- 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/-/xuikXtd2iqQJ. 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.
