Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Mar 2013 23:43 UTC
Legal Countries are starting to get into the patent business; countries like France and South Korea are setting up patent entities to protect domestic companies. "Intellectual Discovery presents itself as a defensive alliance: if a South Korean company finds itself targeted in a lawsuit, for instance, it can access the patents being compiled by Intellectual Discovery to hit back." I support this. If, say, a small Dutch company were to come under unfair patent aggression by bullies like Apple and Microsoft (quite likely these days), I damn well expect my government to protect them from it. If you can't fix the system, work with it. As simple as that.
Thread beginning with comment 556194
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 13:26 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"Most importantly, that a lot of people seem to miss, is that if the taxpayer is funding the system directly, do you think algorithms and design would be accepted as inventions any more? I, as a taxpayer, certainly don't want my system funding such non-inventions. It further removes a whole category of submissions."

This makes no sense to me, taxpayers are never consulted over implementation of law, what influence will they have over bad patents? If algorithms and designs are bad to patent, then they should be banned in the new system.


"Don't resort to 'it will never get accepted' argument. That's not the point of a thought experiment."

ok, so: in the thought experiment, it will never be accepted ;)


"It does give the public benefit, because inventions are now cheaper to licence: $0. It gives the public benefit because inventions are no longer encumbered with licencing costs."

Relative to today, it decreases the harm done by patents, but it does nothing to increase the public benefits over today. I still don't see why the public should pay a fortune in return for so little public benefit?

I prefer to let the public reward developers by free market principals rather than force us to pay taxes into a patent system in which our votes are lost.



"More innovation is allowed to happen because startups aren't under the threat of patent litigation. Patent litigation can't even exist in that system because there's no such thing as infringement or licencing."

Again, the elimination of legal threats is a good thing, but I'm trying to understand your system in terms of what benefit it gives the public. IE, why would a virgin society who had no patent system want to implement your proposal?


"It has all the benefits of dropping patents, but providing just enough incentives for inventors who otherwise wouldn't open their inventions in order to get compensated."


This benefit is sometimes cited by people outside of the field, but for actual developers the technical information disclosed in patents is worthless compared to the wealth of information we have online these days or could derive ourselves.


"It doesn't make sense to drop the system all together because it has even less chance of happening than my proposed system getting accepted. You can't argue that my system won't get accepted as a weakness and then propose an even less likely proposal."

I think there's both unlikely, but at least dropping the patent system is free and the consensus among devs is in favor of no patents for software.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Comment by kwan_e
by kwan_e on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 14:25 in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by kwan_e"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I think the main flaw in your assessment is that you only focus on software patents.

I still take into account that inventions still happen outside of our computer world and those are worth protecting, but not at a cost to society.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Comment by kwan_e
by Alfman on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 15:38 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by kwan_e"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kwan_e,

"I think the main flaw in your assessment is that you only focus on software patents."

Most of the problems with today's patent system have surfaced in the software field, so it probably makes alot of sense to criticize a new patent system in the context of software. I absolutely don't want to preach to other fields what's best for them, which is why I personally speak in terms of software developers and nobody else.

Maybe each field should be free to decide whether patent benefits are worth the costs or not? One size really doesn't fit all. Just a thought.

Edited 2013-03-22 15:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2