Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 14th Jul 2011 21:16 UTC
Legal I've been sitting on this item all day. Technically, it's about patents and the like, and even I understand I've been beating this dead horse so often it almost looks like it's alive. However, this is an interesting opinion piece by Craig Hockenberry, long-time employee at The Iconfactory, one of my favourite software development houses - these guys breath software and beautiful design, and employ one of my favourite artists, David Lanham. The gist of his story? Software patents are killing the independent developer scene.
Thread beginning with comment 481003
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Counterproductive advocacy
by rhavyn on Fri 15th Jul 2011 03:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Counterproductive advocacy"
rhavyn
Member since:
2005-07-06

"As I've said in previous posts, abuse of the patent system is a problem. However, the kind of advocacy shown by posts like this is completely counter productive.


Well maybe a system that allows abuse should be changed IMMEDIATELLY?
And please read the damn U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078, it's not as simple as a grid of icons but does fall under such idiocy.
"

What system doesn't allow abuse? And how do you propose changing the patent system?

The statement "grid of icons can be patented" is as emotional statement as "without software patents there will be no software R&D". However, I don't see you debunking the second one.


Point me at a website where the predominant opinion is that without patents there would be no software development and I would. I personally don't know of such a website, nor of anyone who is really making that argument.

Reply Parent Score: 2

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

As a rebuttal to the argument that software patents drive innovation and creativity, lets think about how things have progressed since 1950. We started out with no patents and not even copyright on the code. It didn't matter as you probably couldn't run the software with out the hardware anyway. We had all kinds of growth and all kinds of different ideas.

Now fast forward to today. We have Microsoft in first with 90% share. They use their patents to bash Android instead of making a better product. We have Apple and the rest of the mobile market being sue happy. We have patent trolls. We have less choice and less innovation. Are we really better off with patents? I dont think so.

Reply Parent Score: 6

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

Now fast forward to today. We have Microsoft in first with 90% share. They use their patents to bash Android instead of making a better product.


Another emotional, factually incorrect statement. First I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't have a 90% share in anything. Second, Microsoft is producing and continually improving a very well received (even by Thom) mobile operating system. Just because a company chooses to use the legal system doesn't mean they aren't producing and competing with a good product too.

We have Apple and the rest of the mobile market being sue happy. We have patent trolls. We have less choice and less innovation. Are we really better off with patents? I dont think so.


You think we have less choice and innovation in software than in the 50's? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, this is the kind of factually incorrect emotional kind of post that I was talking about?

Reply Parent Score: 0

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

What system doesn't allow abuse? And how do you propose changing the patent system?


Thankfully the patent system in my country is the type that I like and did a lot to preserve it's sanity.

Frankly, don't really care about US patent system as long as US government and US corporations don't try to export it and force it on us. In addition, I'd love to see that the access to US market is not used as a tool to practically enforce US patents on other countries(see "the most ethical" work that MS is doing).

Reply Parent Score: 3