61–63 of 63 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software patents exist only in the US, those business will do exactly what they've always done in the 90% of the world that doesn't have them.
Software algorithms are patentable, with more or fewer restorations, in the U.S., China, The UK, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument works only if those who patent stuff are (i) better stuffers than most, and (ii) wouldn't have stuffed without patents. This is difficult to measure, because patents hinder those who want to build on your stuff (you want a cut, so it's more expensive to them). For instance, if ARM didn't have the monopoly over its designs, maybe people would step up and do the same work for free. The best analogy I can…
Your argument assumes that the world of "stuff" resembles GNU/Linux. Very broadly useful things that lots of people have the expertise to contribute to, where the costs of contribution are low. Most stuff doesn't look like that. Nobody is designing transmission power control loops in their free time, nor are they designing chemical processes to remove impurities from natural gas before combustion. You gotta pay someo…
I don't think I have to assume that. Individuals have to limit themselves to such contributions, but companies can make the bigger ones. The question is, would they? I think they would, because I doubt many such investments cannot be paid for without a (temporary) state granted monopoly.
(Now, if you abolished patents overnight, that could spur a sense of loss, which would indeed have a temporary chilling effect on innovation.)
> In such a scenario, the patent isn't a "reward" for innovation, but simply a legal abstraction that makes certain types of business arrangements practical.
Then, I would investigate the value of such business models. Specialization is good, but I think the additional specializations allowed by patents are hitting diminishing returns.
I would also investigate other means to enable such business models. If they can be achieved without patents (your example suggests trade secrets would work too, if Apple, Samsung, etc signed non-disclosures agreement to the same company), then that's one more argument against the patent system: between the patent office, the difficult suits and counter-suits, and the lawyers that work on this full time, the sheer organizational cost to society is substantial. If trade secrets can do the same more efficiently (I think it can in your example), then I say let's kill the unnecessary work!
EFF's position is too moderate. 5 year monopoly on software ideas? If not even the EFF is willing to take an unequivocal stance against software patents, the trolls and the system will keep their legitimacy. We should not be afraid to take (seemingly) radical positions. Fear of offending the status quo is what keeps it in place. Not too long ago the idea of patenting a theorem or a gene was dubious; the moderates may…
What they're doing here is good strategy. Option A: EFF: "Hey, legislators, you should abolish this system that we've had for decades and you don't understand. Let me tell you why the interlocking parts of a software algorithm are totally different from the interlocking parts of a car engine ..." Patent Trolls: "This is a pie-in-the-sky proposal that would never work in practice and would undercut our economy in the…