| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearingAn opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearingPosted Apr 10, 2008 0:10 UTC (Thu) by caitlinbestler (subscriber, #32532)In reply to: An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing by nix Parent article: An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing
The same could be argued for any service or any form Intellectual Property. They "just" take time. By your logic everything should be free. your objection is to the market system, and has absolutely nothing to do with software patents.
(Log in to post comments)
An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing Posted Apr 10, 2008 0:33 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Er, as far as I was aware you can't construct and test physical machinery, or (say) some new drug for nothing. Building machinery costs money. Running clinical trials is vastly expensive. In both cases, the cost of <i>inventing</i> the patented entity is vastly higher than the cost of <i>implementing an instance</i> of that entity, given the patent. Coming up with some patentable algorithm appears (from the quality of the algorithms already patented) to be a matter of a couple of hours' thought, if that. No significant expenditure is required above and beyond that which is needed to get a working instance of the algorithm. Access to the patent doesn't help you at all. (Note how software patents are essentially never used by anyone in the field for any purpose whatsoever other than as landmines: the system is essentially worthless as a repository of algorithmic knowledge. Indeed most companies recommend against or actively ban the use of patent searches for any purpose, because all it does is bring in the possibility of a wilful infringement suit, and there's no real chance of finding anything useful and comprehensible in there faster than you could think it up yourself.)
Patents = government-created monopoly Posted Apr 10, 2008 16:18 UTC (Thu) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] Huh? Patents are not a requirement for a free market; they inhibit the creation of a free market. In a free market, everyone would be developing the best products and services they could. Instead, patents are a government-created monopoly, preventing most market players from deploying the best products and services that they can. What's more, there is nothing in nature "requiring" the existence of patents. Without patents, we would actually have a freer market. Patents are yet another government bureaucracy, in this case a very expensive one.Now, that's not to say that patents are always a bad idea; patents are essentially a bargain created by governments, granting temporary monopolies in exchange for the development of products and documentation of ideas that would not happen otherwise. In short, patents are a solution for a market failure - if you cannot get new ideas in a area without patents, then patents can help create a market where one did not exist before. But there was no market failure for software. Software was developed for decades without software patents. So instead, software patents have actually retarded innovation, inhibited the free market, and caused massive harm to the economy. Study after study is showing that software patents have harmed, not helped, the industry. I think the jury is out on medical patents - they may very well be worth the cost. But software patents are absolute lunacy. If the pharma industry wants to keep patents on medicine, they should work to eliminate software patents... or people will eventually throw out the whole patent system as being unjust and unworkable.
Patents = government-created monopoly Posted Apr 11, 2008 9:26 UTC (Fri) by PO8 (guest, #41661) [Link] "Patents are essentially a bargain created by governments, granting temporary monopolies in exchange for the development of products and documentation of ideas that would not happen otherwise." Historically, patents were essentially a bargain created by governments, granting temporary monopolies in exchange for lots of money. The conceptualization you describe occurred later.
Patents = government-created monopoly Posted Apr 15, 2008 9:07 UTC (Tue) by roberton (guest, #39680) [Link] Excellent summary, I totally agree. Regarding the distinction between software patents and medical patents, IMO there is no doubt that pharma patents allow private companies to develop drugs that they would not otherwise have done. Whether this model is the best way to develop those drugs is debatable, but even this "plus" side doesn't apply to software patents. Software patents have no benefits, only terrible costs. Roberto/.
An opportunity to End Software Patents: ESP briefs Court in Bilski case rehearing Posted Apr 11, 2008 0:32 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] "'By your logic everything should be free. your objection is to the market system, and has absolutely nothing to do with software patents."" Umm... In a truly capitalistic environment there would be no place for any sort of patents or copyrights for that matter. Or any form of artificial government-enforced ownership over anything.
Government-enforced ownership Posted Apr 11, 2008 6:22 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Actually, apart from wild west scenarios all property is "artificial government-enforced ownership". From ancient irrigation laws in Summer to medieval land deeds to modern day copyright regulations, ownership is granted (or taken away) from the state to private citizens; and it is the state's judicial system which decides upon who owns who. In the old days kings exercised all this power (remember Solomon's judgment), while now it is the State.
|
|
||||||||||||