Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Oct 2011 20:45 UTC, submitted by danbuter
Permalink for comment 492384
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-12
That is by far the least relevant, least coherent argument against software patents I've ever seen. Patents are bad because they lead to lawsuits. Well, then drunk driving laws are bad because they lead to arrests. You have to make some kind of case with evidence that intervention is worse than non-intervention, or in this case, that protection is worse than non-protection.
The only instance in which that case was even partially made was with patent trolls (NPEs), but the closing paragraph actually disregards them by describing a "war being waged between tech companies", and patent trolls are not tech companies.
I would argue that we can't have standards without patents. Without patents, all inventions are proprietary trade secrets, and without FRAND, all standards are government fiat, and we all know how slow government moves.