3 ms·
Yet another 'software patents are bad' piece without a single fact. Many disagreed to the point of retaliative downvoting with my blog post the other day ( htt
by justinsb 17y ago
Yet another 'software patents are bad' piece without a single fact. Many disagreed to the point of retaliative downvoting with my blog post the other day ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1167926 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1167926 ), but it was trying to make a fact-based case pro-patents; can't we at least try to argue from facts rather than hearsay on HN?
- kiba 17y agoIt would seem to me that he is arguing from conjectures and logics. I think that deduction is a valid investigation technique, because mostly we can't investigate everything using induction. As for your argument in that post regarding Google, I would still say that even if a patent is non-frivolous, non-obvious, and innovative, it could still have a negative overall effect mostly because of the privileges that is afforded to inventors and innovators to silence the competition who may have come up with equally groundbreaking work. Innovative, non-frivolous patents still poses a danger to the open source software industry, which does not relies on patents to make their money. The patent system make us choose a kind of inventor and entrepreneur over the type that open up their secrecy to the world and become wealthy from it. That's the choice we're making if we choose the patent system over the market solution of intentional openness.