7 ms·

> Let's put your idea to the test. My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And

> Let's put your idea to the test. My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades. The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. Otherwise, we would never have had the iPhone, Android nor the BlackBerry. Now try to understand why the system works despite your understanding of it.

gnaritas 11y ago
> My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades. That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents, not because of them, because developers largely ignore them and just code whatever they want anyway. > The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. The system doesn't work, that's rather the point; the entire software industry, which you're going on about, largely ignores them, or collects them as weapons of defense against other companies.
- incepted 11y ago
  > That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents No. My claim is simply: "The US is the most innovative country in the world in terms of software, and has been for the past decades". This is a fact. Your claim is: "This has happened DESPITE patents". There is little to no evidence for your claim and the burden of proof is on you. > The system doesn't work, that's rather the point It it didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world. It is, therefore your claim is wrong. The system works. Could it work better? Sure. Propose a solution and show some evidence that your solution will be better than the current situation. Then we can talk.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > It it didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world. False, you're claiming we're this innovative because of patents; the burden of proof is upon you to link our success to patents. In the software industry in particular, your claim is just absurd and programmers know it. > It is, therefore your claim is wrong. The system works. Incorrect, our lead in innovation does not logically lead to the conclusion that our patent system works well. That you think it does indicates a failure of logic on your part. Innovation happens with or without patents, patents by their very nature slow it down by preventing others from innovating. Patents have never increased innovation, that isn't their purpose; their purpose is to prevent innovation from disappearing into trade secrets and add it to the collective human knowledge. They do this by hampering innovation in favor of the original innovator in exchange for disclosure of the innovation. > Your claim is: "This has happened DESPITE patents". There is little to no evidence for your claim and the burden of proof is on you. There's mountains of evidence, it's found in how companies now use patents, as legal weapons to defend themselves from other companies and their hoards of patents. That's not what the system was designed to do. And now patent trolls, the existence of which are quite literal prove the system is broken. Lets be clear, because someone else's argument fails isn't proof that yours is correct; your arguments have to stand on their own and so far you're not making your own case at all. If you want to defend patents, then defend them, you're not just right because someone else is wrong nor is our lead in innovation proof that patents work. Logic doesn't work that way. And take note, you're talking to multiple people here.
    - incepted 11y ago
      > False, you're claiming we're this innovative because of patents I never made that claim. All I said is that the US is the most innovative country in terms of software. That's my claim and it's fact. People who say that the system is broken need to first reconcile their claim with my statement of fact. And they're doing a terrible job at providing proof of their claims besides saying "the system is broken". > That's not what the system was designed to do. And now patent trolls, the existence of which are quite literal prove the system is broken. That's absurd exaggeration. The system is not broken, it has flaws. Fix the flaw that enabled patent trolls and the system will get even better than it is today. > you're not just right because someone else is wrong nor is our lead in innovation proof that patents work. Logic doesn't work that way. Totally agree. Good thing I did none of that.
      - gnaritas 11y ago
        > People who say that the system is broken need to first reconcile their claim with my statement of fact. No they don't. The system can be broken without conflicting with your statement of fact that we lead in software innovation. You think those things are conflicting, they are not. > Totally agree. Good thing I did none of that. It's all you've done, and you just did it again by claiming they need to reconcile with your fact; no they don't, another fallacy the false choice.
  - enraged_camel 11y ago
    Nope. The burden of proof is on you to show that the US is innovative because of patents.
    - incepted 11y ago
      I never made that claim, reread what I wrote.
      - oblio 11y ago
        > Also, for using a system that's allegedly broken, the US is the country that has been the most innovative in terms of software for decades in a row now.
        BookmarkSaver 11y ago
        Yes. That is what he said. He didn't claim a cause, he didn't say that it was broken or that the existing system is the reason that we are ahead. It is undeniable that the US is successful and innovative. The burden of proof is on the people claiming the system is broken, because the end result does not support that claim. If you want to say that the US is succeeding despite a broken system, you have to prove that the system is broken because the success is already self-evident.
      - enraged_camel 11y ago
        You said, "if [the patent system] didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world." So your claim is that the US is innovative because of its patent system.
        incepted 11y ago
        No, I'm disbelieving the claim that it's broken. Same thing that saying you don't believe in god does not mean you believe there is no god. In both cases, I'm just saying not enough evidence has been brought to support the claim (that the system is broken and that god exists).
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Most of the patents files for software are by big companies. Most innovations come from startups, academics, and volunteers in FOSS. Most of it was protected by copyright law with money recouped in licensing and acquisitions. Now try to understand why innovation existed outside patent motivations. Then look up what big companies do with all those patents. Only then will you see the real effect of the patent system.
- jb613 11y ago
  > Most innovations come from startups, academics, and volunteers in FOSS. Not sure you can lump 3 very different types of entities into one group. I agree with your 1st type (startups) but what about #2 (academics) and #3 (FOSS volunteers) - what are some examples that "most innovations" come from them?
- rayiner 11y ago
  Universities are big filers of patents, so that leaves startups and FOSS. The latter do a lot of innovative application, but not much invention. If you look at something like a smart phone. The UI was developed at a big company, using ideas originally developed at big corporate R&D labs. The CPU and wireless chips were all designed at big companies. The LCD and touch screen technology is all developed at big companies. The only big FOSS part (the Linux core of Android), is a clone of something (UNIX), invented in a big corporate R&D lab.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    Even with your counters, it seems innovation would continue via academic grant money and R&D by big companies for differentiation.
  - pcwalton 11y ago
    FOSS has its fair share of research. You just don't hear about it as often as you hear about the more engineering-focused FOSS projects, for the same reasons you don't hear about the research projects big companies do as much as their flagship engineering projects. (How many people have heard of Midori compared to Windows? I'd wager it's the same ratio, speaking in orders of magnitude, as the number of people who have heard of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler vs. GCC, both of which are FOSS. I could name many other examples just in the PL domain.) Now you might say that a lot of those open source research projects are funded by big companies, so they don't count. But most development on popular open source projects is funded by big or medium-size companies. Research isn't any different in this regard. I think it's no accident that most of your examples are hardware, not software. The problem there is that open source hardware is difficult to make work, not that open source research is difficult to make work. The other main example you gave is Unix, but FOSS didn't exist in 1973--of course it wasn't open source by the modern definition. Its research successor, Plan 9, was open source. Disclaimer: I work on one of those open source research projects.
mattlutze 11y ago
> The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. Otherwise, we would never have had the iPhone, Android nor the BlackBerry. Those companies built their phones then spent tens/hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits fighting each other's basic patents and infringements thereof. That would appear to be option b in the parent's scenario. Big companies can afford to take that risk. Small companies end up having to sell to bigger companies or close down when core tech is threatened by patent challenges.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Well-said. That's exactly what I'm arguing. The patent suits, the cost, and the results work against innovation. This is provable by looking at patent-holders' behavior then what resulted from it. The combo of market forces, legal threats, and silo-ing led the industry to be an oligopoly among a handful of companies with two, large OS's. Apple's patents and position led them to make insane profits close to $100 billion. Yet, their innovation isn't significantly greater than the more open alternative. The money goes goes into their pocket, mostly, plus some R&D and lots of lawsuits. The true result of the U.S. patent system: making owners money.

gnaritas 11y ago

> My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades. That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents, not because of them, because developers largely ignore them and just code whatever they want anyway. > The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. The system doesn't work, that's rather the point; the entire software industry, which you're going on about, largely ignores them, or collects them as weapons of defense against other companies.

incepted 11y ago
> That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents No. My claim is simply: "The US is the most innovative country in the world in terms of software, and has been for the past decades". This is a fact. Your claim is: "This has happened DESPITE patents". There is little to no evidence for your claim and the burden of proof is on you. > The system doesn't work, that's rather the point It it didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world. It is, therefore your claim is wrong. The system works. Could it work better? Sure. Propose a solution and show some evidence that your solution will be better than the current situation. Then we can talk.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > It it didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world. False, you're claiming we're this innovative because of patents; the burden of proof is upon you to link our success to patents. In the software industry in particular, your claim is just absurd and programmers know it. > It is, therefore your claim is wrong. The system works. Incorrect, our lead in innovation does not logically lead to the conclusion that our patent system works well. That you think it does indicates a failure of logic on your part. Innovation happens with or without patents, patents by their very nature slow it down by preventing others from innovating. Patents have never increased innovation, that isn't their purpose; their purpose is to prevent innovation from disappearing into trade secrets and add it to the collective human knowledge. They do this by hampering innovation in favor of the original innovator in exchange for disclosure of the innovation. > Your claim is: "This has happened DESPITE patents". There is little to no evidence for your claim and the burden of proof is on you. There's mountains of evidence, it's found in how companies now use patents, as legal weapons to defend themselves from other companies and their hoards of patents. That's not what the system was designed to do. And now patent trolls, the existence of which are quite literal prove the system is broken. Lets be clear, because someone else's argument fails isn't proof that yours is correct; your arguments have to stand on their own and so far you're not making your own case at all. If you want to defend patents, then defend them, you're not just right because someone else is wrong nor is our lead in innovation proof that patents work. Logic doesn't work that way. And take note, you're talking to multiple people here.
  - incepted 11y ago
    > False, you're claiming we're this innovative because of patents I never made that claim. All I said is that the US is the most innovative country in terms of software. That's my claim and it's fact. People who say that the system is broken need to first reconcile their claim with my statement of fact. And they're doing a terrible job at providing proof of their claims besides saying "the system is broken". > That's not what the system was designed to do. And now patent trolls, the existence of which are quite literal prove the system is broken. That's absurd exaggeration. The system is not broken, it has flaws. Fix the flaw that enabled patent trolls and the system will get even better than it is today. > you're not just right because someone else is wrong nor is our lead in innovation proof that patents work. Logic doesn't work that way. Totally agree. Good thing I did none of that.
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      > People who say that the system is broken need to first reconcile their claim with my statement of fact. No they don't. The system can be broken without conflicting with your statement of fact that we lead in software innovation. You think those things are conflicting, they are not. > Totally agree. Good thing I did none of that. It's all you've done, and you just did it again by claiming they need to reconcile with your fact; no they don't, another fallacy the false choice.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  Nope. The burden of proof is on you to show that the US is innovative because of patents.
  - incepted 11y ago
    I never made that claim, reread what I wrote.
    - oblio 11y ago
      > Also, for using a system that's allegedly broken, the US is the country that has been the most innovative in terms of software for decades in a row now.
      - BookmarkSaver 11y ago
        Yes. That is what he said. He didn't claim a cause, he didn't say that it was broken or that the existing system is the reason that we are ahead. It is undeniable that the US is successful and innovative. The burden of proof is on the people claiming the system is broken, because the end result does not support that claim. If you want to say that the US is succeeding despite a broken system, you have to prove that the system is broken because the success is already self-evident.
    - enraged_camel 11y ago
      You said, "if [the patent system] didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world." So your claim is that the US is innovative because of its patent system.
      - incepted 11y ago
        No, I'm disbelieving the claim that it's broken. Same thing that saying you don't believe in god does not mean you believe there is no god. In both cases, I'm just saying not enough evidence has been brought to support the claim (that the system is broken and that god exists).

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Most of the patents files for software are by big companies. Most innovations come from startups, academics, and volunteers in FOSS. Most of it was protected by copyright law with money recouped in licensing and acquisitions. Now try to understand why innovation existed outside patent motivations. Then look up what big companies do with all those patents. Only then will you see the real effect of the patent system.

jb613 11y ago
> Most innovations come from startups, academics, and volunteers in FOSS. Not sure you can lump 3 very different types of entities into one group. I agree with your 1st type (startups) but what about #2 (academics) and #3 (FOSS volunteers) - what are some examples that "most innovations" come from them?
rayiner 11y ago
Universities are big filers of patents, so that leaves startups and FOSS. The latter do a lot of innovative application, but not much invention. If you look at something like a smart phone. The UI was developed at a big company, using ideas originally developed at big corporate R&D labs. The CPU and wireless chips were all designed at big companies. The LCD and touch screen technology is all developed at big companies. The only big FOSS part (the Linux core of Android), is a clone of something (UNIX), invented in a big corporate R&D lab.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  Even with your counters, it seems innovation would continue via academic grant money and R&D by big companies for differentiation.
- pcwalton 11y ago
  FOSS has its fair share of research. You just don't hear about it as often as you hear about the more engineering-focused FOSS projects, for the same reasons you don't hear about the research projects big companies do as much as their flagship engineering projects. (How many people have heard of Midori compared to Windows? I'd wager it's the same ratio, speaking in orders of magnitude, as the number of people who have heard of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler vs. GCC, both of which are FOSS. I could name many other examples just in the PL domain.) Now you might say that a lot of those open source research projects are funded by big companies, so they don't count. But most development on popular open source projects is funded by big or medium-size companies. Research isn't any different in this regard. I think it's no accident that most of your examples are hardware, not software. The problem there is that open source hardware is difficult to make work, not that open source research is difficult to make work. The other main example you gave is Unix, but FOSS didn't exist in 1973--of course it wasn't open source by the modern definition. Its research successor, Plan 9, was open source. Disclaimer: I work on one of those open source research projects.

mattlutze 11y ago

> The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. Otherwise, we would never have had the iPhone, Android nor the BlackBerry. Those companies built their phones then spent tens/hundreds of millions of dollars in lawsuits fighting each other's basic patents and infringements thereof. That would appear to be option b in the parent's scenario. Big companies can afford to take that risk. Small companies end up having to sell to bigger companies or close down when core tech is threatened by patent challenges.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Well-said. That's exactly what I'm arguing. The patent suits, the cost, and the results work against innovation. This is provable by looking at patent-holders' behavior then what resulted from it. The combo of market forces, legal threats, and silo-ing led the industry to be an oligopoly among a handful of companies with two, large OS's. Apple's patents and position led them to make insane profits close to $100 billion. Yet, their innovation isn't significantly greater than the more open alternative. The money goes goes into their pocket, mostly, plus some R&D and lots of lawsuits. The true result of the U.S. patent system: making owners money.