On 11 August 2011 20:49, Oscar Hsieh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Personally I am in the #2 'fix the damn thing' camp. Pattern cannot be all > bad, just take a look at USA. > I don't like to comment on the subject since I don't think I have full > knowledge of the US pattern system. Today I read a great article on this > matter and I would like to share with you > > http://thisismynext.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-system/ > > Its written by a former editor from Engadget, and he talks from > Non-programmer point of view (which I think is great) > > A couple quotes from the article > > "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" > > "Stop offering patent protection and there’s no more required disclosure — > all this stuff stays locked up as trade secrets as long as it offers a > competitive advantage, after which point it may well be forgotten." > > I think it is worth your time to read the article. > > Thanks >
"Ensure that innovation ends up documented and in the public domain". It's a very worthy goal and, in theory at least, patents seem like a rather neat way to achieve this; by rewarding the patent inventor with a legally protected, time-limited monopoly. Interestingly, this is exactly the same guiding principle behind copyrights, and it's such an appealing idea that it's even been enshrined within the US constitution. Crucially, nobody objects to this central idea. In theory it has everything going for it. The main objections to patents are how it actually works in practice: - Copyright already seeks to achieve the same goal. So why, exactly, do we need two competing systems for the same purpose? Not that copyright is perfect either, of course, if it was then the phrase "Mickey Mouse Copyright" wouldn't be so well known - Many patents filed would find it very hard to describe themselves as "innovation". Filing a patent for something that is already obvious runs directly counter to the goal, by *removing* ideas from the public domain. - IT moves fast, the current duration of patent protection locks out other potential innovation that can and should be building upon the originally patented work. Things don't stay novel for too long in our industry, and blocking derivative innovation is actively harmful to both consumers and the economy. The history of the steam engine makes for a fascinating case study of how patents block innovation and restrict the rate at which ideas enter the public domain. More recently, you can also look at how patents of the GIF format held back availability of a standard lossless image format, or the issues currently being caused by MPEG patents. It's a great idea, but under the current implementation patents seem to be achieving the exact opposite of what they're supposed to do; and we're paying for that privilege... -- 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.
