5 ms·

You have a few conflated arguments here. Open source is relatively orthogonal to the patent system. There is some overlap in that they both require disclosure,

You have a few conflated arguments here. Open source is relatively orthogonal to the patent system. There is some overlap in that they both require disclosure, but the fundamental incentives are different, so you should expect different software to be developed. Improvements to patents can be patented in their own right, by different owners. I agree that it is significantly more onerous than open source. Scummy as Martin Shkreli was, he jacked the price up on a generic... Not something under patent. It just takes time/money to certify that new generic lines are manufactured to FDA standards, do he had a temporary monopoly. Lawsuits against "infringing" software are relatively easy, and expensive to defend against. That is independent of whether the defendant patented the software or not. This is more the nature of our legal system, and one could argue that the patent system should handle this stuff internally. However, I think the legal system would be hard to improve upon without causing other problems, like making it difficult to challenge for legitimate infringement. All in all, I agree a lot of questionable patents get issued. I just think the reality is far more subtle.

chris_wot 11y ago
India decided to ignore patents on certain medicines. Pharmaceutical companies were initially outraged, then when they realised they had hit an immovable object they freaked out and started offering their drugs at very low cost. They are still making innovative products, but they distorted their market power and millions of poor Indian citizen's lives were immeasurably worse off for it. Your final point about patent infringement... I dunno what to say. You've just explained why patents are inherently problematic, the patent system can't handle it internally because then they would be handling financial lawsuits in a non-transparent matter, and the rule of law would be in essence damaged. By making the patent office the approvers AND handle objections - that's not going to ever work. They'll almost always agree with their own decision. After all, they made the wrong decision in the first place! Patents occur within the legal framework. If the patent system is hard to improve, then those other issues you mention are, to my kind, not immeasurably greater than the utterly broken patent system we gave today. I don't feel the reality is as subtle as you talk about. I think it's actually as clear as day that patents distort markets, and I don't feel you've demonstrated that patents aren't orthogonal to open source software, except where it comes to financial incentives. Open Source financial incentives are to build the best software that the market wants, and sell the code with backing support contracts and early access to new features that are shown in the open, with guarantees that the best people are working on the software; yet still the same time allowing maximum competition and innovation in the market whilst each company or organization strives to produce the most attractive offering. Patents attempt to produce a monopoly on an idea and prevent anyone else from capitalising on it for decades. It assumes that nobody will ever want to form an invention unless they have exclusive control over that idea. That's self-contradictory - protecting a patent means that someone else WILL have that idea eventually and want to build a product around it, or even incorporate it into their product. They won't be able to, except at great cost. This clearly and IS stifling innovation. The rise of patent trolls and defensive patents are just two examples of how utterly and fundamentally flawed the entire concept of patents are.
- chris_va 11y ago
  This is a silly forum in which to have a long debate :). I will admit, I mostly agree that the vast majority of software patents should probably be invalid, and that the existing system leaves a lot to be desired. A couple of important points: > They are still making innovative products, but they distorted their market power and millions of poor Indian citizen's lives were immeasurably worse off for it. No, most innovation in new drugs happen in countries with strong patent protection. There is a lot of development outsourced to India, but almost nothing innovative on the development side. That isn't to say India's policy doesn't make sense for them, but they are essentially just stealing from the US and other countries. Imagine if that were true worldwide 20 years ago. Health insurance would be a lot cheaper, yes, but a large percentage of drugs developed in the last 20 years would not exist. It's a trade off that maximizes a longer term return. > infringement Yeah, I was just pointing out that a lot of the patent system is designed to protect people who are being infringed by larger entities. Just because it is abused by others doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. > patents distort markets Of course they do, but it is not necessarily net negative. > demonstrated that patents aren't orthogonal Yes, that is a very long discussion. However, it should be fairly obvious that the software developed by industry and the software available in the open source world is not the same. I would go so far as to say the open source world is an order of magnitude or two smaller than software from for-profit entities. There are different incentives for releasing open source software than starting a business, and patents are designed to make the latter more attractive. > Patents attempt to produce a monopoly on an idea and prevent anyone else from capitalising on it for decades. No, patents provide a temporary, licensable monopoly on an implementation. You don't patent the idea of holding paper together, you patent the concrete implementation and manufacture of a paper clip. More importantly, they require disclosure of that implementation to the rest of the world. I think this gets lost when people talk about removing the patent system. The primary purpose wasn't to encourage invention, but to make sure people disclose it.
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    Agreed. For the record, I hope you understand that whilst I disagree with you, I respect your viewpoint :-) if I've been overly harsh, I apologise. I agree this is a long conversation and probably not entirely the right forum. Also, I just had an operation and in pain, and just took some heavy medication, so I'm going to have to bow out... My writing might suddenly appear more erratic than normal!

chris_wot 11y ago

India decided to ignore patents on certain medicines. Pharmaceutical companies were initially outraged, then when they realised they had hit an immovable object they freaked out and started offering their drugs at very low cost. They are still making innovative products, but they distorted their market power and millions of poor Indian citizen's lives were immeasurably worse off for it. Your final point about patent infringement... I dunno what to say. You've just explained why patents are inherently problematic, the patent system can't handle it internally because then they would be handling financial lawsuits in a non-transparent matter, and the rule of law would be in essence damaged. By making the patent office the approvers AND handle objections - that's not going to ever work. They'll almost always agree with their own decision. After all, they made the wrong decision in the first place! Patents occur within the legal framework. If the patent system is hard to improve, then those other issues you mention are, to my kind, not immeasurably greater than the utterly broken patent system we gave today. I don't feel the reality is as subtle as you talk about. I think it's actually as clear as day that patents distort markets, and I don't feel you've demonstrated that patents aren't orthogonal to open source software, except where it comes to financial incentives. Open Source financial incentives are to build the best software that the market wants, and sell the code with backing support contracts and early access to new features that are shown in the open, with guarantees that the best people are working on the software; yet still the same time allowing maximum competition and innovation in the market whilst each company or organization strives to produce the most attractive offering. Patents attempt to produce a monopoly on an idea and prevent anyone else from capitalising on it for decades. It assumes that nobody will ever want to form an invention unless they have exclusive control over that idea. That's self-contradictory - protecting a patent means that someone else WILL have that idea eventually and want to build a product around it, or even incorporate it into their product. They won't be able to, except at great cost. This clearly and IS stifling innovation. The rise of patent trolls and defensive patents are just two examples of how utterly and fundamentally flawed the entire concept of patents are.

chris_va 11y ago
This is a silly forum in which to have a long debate :). I will admit, I mostly agree that the vast majority of software patents should probably be invalid, and that the existing system leaves a lot to be desired. A couple of important points: > They are still making innovative products, but they distorted their market power and millions of poor Indian citizen's lives were immeasurably worse off for it. No, most innovation in new drugs happen in countries with strong patent protection. There is a lot of development outsourced to India, but almost nothing innovative on the development side. That isn't to say India's policy doesn't make sense for them, but they are essentially just stealing from the US and other countries. Imagine if that were true worldwide 20 years ago. Health insurance would be a lot cheaper, yes, but a large percentage of drugs developed in the last 20 years would not exist. It's a trade off that maximizes a longer term return. > infringement Yeah, I was just pointing out that a lot of the patent system is designed to protect people who are being infringed by larger entities. Just because it is abused by others doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose. > patents distort markets Of course they do, but it is not necessarily net negative. > demonstrated that patents aren't orthogonal Yes, that is a very long discussion. However, it should be fairly obvious that the software developed by industry and the software available in the open source world is not the same. I would go so far as to say the open source world is an order of magnitude or two smaller than software from for-profit entities. There are different incentives for releasing open source software than starting a business, and patents are designed to make the latter more attractive. > Patents attempt to produce a monopoly on an idea and prevent anyone else from capitalising on it for decades. No, patents provide a temporary, licensable monopoly on an implementation. You don't patent the idea of holding paper together, you patent the concrete implementation and manufacture of a paper clip. More importantly, they require disclosure of that implementation to the rest of the world. I think this gets lost when people talk about removing the patent system. The primary purpose wasn't to encourage invention, but to make sure people disclose it.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Agreed. For the record, I hope you understand that whilst I disagree with you, I respect your viewpoint :-) if I've been overly harsh, I apologise. I agree this is a long conversation and probably not entirely the right forum. Also, I just had an operation and in pain, and just took some heavy medication, so I'm going to have to bow out... My writing might suddenly appear more erratic than normal!