171–180 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead they played that same game and are now part of the big software patent companies. In a selfish perspective, it does make sense. I fear Google one day understands that they should join this mafia and start suing for their patents, under the pressure of their shareholders.
The Googlers would revolt.
Good. There are few things which can effect change better than billionaires in fear of losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. When it happens to small fry you lament because they can't do anything to change and end up settling to save themselves or losing and losing everything. When it happens to the 55th largest company you rejoice because they have the power and motivation to change the rules.
> Even though there was no evidence of copying—Vringo admitted as much What a ridiculous system we all operate under. You come up with a mathematical formula for ranking some text on a page (in this case, what ads to show first), and you could now owe $250M/year to some company you've never heard of because they already bought the rights to that formula. It turns my stomach; sorry that I have nothing of more substanc…
The lack of an independent invention defense (or some variation of this) is pretty much 80% of what's wrong with patent law in my opinion. A sampling of the issues an independent invention addresses: * Obviousness. Patents are required to be non-obvious to a "person holding ordinary skill in the art", but obviousness is highly subjective and difficult to assess (especially for a non-technical jury). In contrast, eval…
If several people would claim independent invention, it is obviously a statement about obviousness. So the patent would already be invalid under the current law.
Now, since everyone involved in patents, they don't want to interpret the law that way. So there is a non-written agreement that no one will go that route. and that is idiotic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being "first to market" only matters when you're building things like Facebook or Windows, where network effects are relevant. If you're making consumable or durable goods, being first to market is irrelevant. India will clone your drug within a few months of its release, but there is no way you'll make up all that capital investment by then. Without patents, the rational thing to do is not invest any more in an inve…
Not disagreeing with your point, but I chuckled a bit at your examples. I wouldn't qualify either Facebook or Windows as being "first to market". Though I think this mainly just points out the squishiness of the term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily opposed, but there are a couple areas where this might be a net loss absent other adjustments. Pharmaceuticals would be the obvious one -- they require a large upfront research cost, copying is trivial, and the FDA approval process erodes first-to-market advantages.
Pharmaceuticals would be devastated. While there are externalities that need to be solved around our production of drugs, the patent system is a good thing overall for them. No one spends $1 billion to make a drug if anyone can copy it simply. Additionally there are international problems related to abolishing patents.
it required research. Just like a car required crash tests, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hollywood, Wall St, Apple, Boeing... Yeah the US doesn't produce anything... they just make up that 15 trillion dollars of GDP (double what the next biggest economy makes - China).
Firstly GDP is not a measure of what an economy "makes", it is a measure of its throughput. Remember that every dollar the US government "borrows" out of thin air and spends on military hardware adds to that total, so I wouldn't regard a high GDP as necessarily a sign of economic health. Secondly, of your haphazard list, only Boeing does any manufacturing. Maybe instead of knee-jerking with "America is great" you sho…
All of those industries produce, and all of them make significant money, and the GDP backs that up. Producing stuff while going into debt, is still producing stuff, so your reasoning about debt has no relevance.
So maybe you should take your own advice?
Just for the record: I think America is a shit hole, and I'm generally anti-capitalist. But it's nonsense to pretend they don't produce anything.
So called "intellectual property" is an other way to decrease the value of manual work and increase the income of pure "possessions". By making creative work "property" that can be owned and making minimal creative acts "possessable" in a way, that other creativity is inhibited or at least "billed", actual work is diminished for pure "property" holding. The only way, non-possessing people can climb up "from rags to r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pharmaceuticals would be devastated. While there are externalities that need to be solved around our production of drugs, the patent system is a good thing overall for them. No one spends $1 billion to make a drug if anyone can copy it simply. Additionally there are international problems related to abolishing patents.
Why everyone think of drugs only? it required research. Just like a car required crash tests, etc.