On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:03 AM, Cédric Beust ♔ <[email protected]> wrote: > I was not trying to prove anything. I was responding to the claim "The > system is completely broken" by giving a few examples that show that the > system is not as broken as claimed. > > Could it be improved? Of course, and I gave a few suggestions to that effect > in the past discussions. But anyone who claims that the current system > completely stifles innovation needs to pause for a moment and look at the > the US track record in software innovation (pretty good compared to all the > other countries). > > Maybe the current system *slows down* innovation, but none of the ideas I've > heard so far that purport to fix this have met the burden of proof that > under these new rules, there would be more innovation than there is right > now.
I still feel that the initial innovations in computers serves decently to show that the current level of patent usage is absurd. Consider if IBM had a patent on the original BIOS. A "cleanroom" reverse engineering of it is not even close to a defense from patent infringement. Hell, a "clean room, you had no idea that another person even patented something" isn't a defense. Not to mention your view is pretty insulting to China. Do you really believe there is no innovation over there? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
