On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 07:03 -0700, Cédric Beust ♔ 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.
I have lost track of who claimed what, when I'm afraid. I wonder though if there is an element of "cross purposes" at least between your arguments and mine. I believe the patent system generally, but especially the USA system, is broken because it doesn't support the little guy, it is now just being "gamed" by big business and the lawyers. Over the last couple of years I think I have documented this in various posting here and on my blog – albeit somewhat aggressively sometimes! I think the innovation that has undoubtedly been happening in the USA has little or nothing to do with the patent system directly: seeking patent protection is not an integral part of most innovative companies strategy. > 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). I think I have never claimed that the patent system stifles innovation directly, but I think it can (and does) indirectly. This is not however in anyway in conflict with your claim (which I agree with) that the USA has an excellent track record of innovation. I think though that USA innovation and the patent system are two different dimensions of USA society. > 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 haven't yet seen a proposal regarding patents that will refocus the system back to the 18th century focus on allowing small guy inventors to benefit from big guy exploitation. I think that time is now over, that tax benefits, NDAs, good marketing, and rapid time to market are the main drivers. Certainly patents can be taken out as a defensive measure, but in the end market penetration prior to competition is something to be achieved by means other than patents when you are a small guy in a market where there are big guys. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:[email protected] 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: [email protected] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
