4 ms·
Open Source accomplish exactly the opposite of what patents are for: instead of encouraging innovation by providing financial incentive (from temporary monopoly
by mamon 11y ago
Open Source accomplish exactly the opposite of what patents are for: instead of encouraging innovation by providing financial incentive (from temporary monopoly on selling said innovation) it discourages it because it basically ensures that you'll never make any money on your invention.
Maybe I'm missing something but there aren't many examples of truly innovative open source software - most of OSS projects even describe themselves as "Open Source alternative to [insert innovative commercial product here]"
- chris_wot 11y agoEmail isn't patented, not it the web, nor is TCP/IP, nor is any one of dozens of non-patented inventions you use on a daily basis. If TCP/IP was patented, do you think you'd see the Internet as we know it today? Would NetFlix, or Wikipedia or even Google would exist in the form it is now? I don't think so. edit: removed the "that's ridiculous" comment. I'm sorry, you aren't ridiculous, nor is your comment. That showed you a great deal of disrespect, and I was out of line. I hope you can accept this apology. My disagreement with your argument should never have led to disrespectful comments. (I just hit the up vote arrow) I think some of my other comments have this language in them. That's unfortunate, it's just this is just the first one I noticed.