Linked by jrincayc on Fri 15th Jul 2011 17:14 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 481327
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-03-30
> The purpose of patents is to ensure that companies / individuals get a return on investment in research and development.
Maybe. I think I get that. It might just be greed though. I'm not sure government needs to get involved in this.
> Without patents, there is no motivation to invest in research and development if somebody else can take the results
A patent proponent might say that, but then you'd say "pick any open source business to disprove that." There is implicit benefit in being the innovator. Red Hat gives their code away, but Red Hat is still the expert of their code, and they are paid a premium for the business they build around that. So a counterexample. You don't necessarily need patents to make money off new inventions. I'm left unsure of patents. Sanctioned thuggery is an interesting term.