5 ms·

> 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

> 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).

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).