4 ms·
Given that the fundamental concept of software patents is bad, not only in principle but in practice, there's burden on anyone suggesting the good/bad question
by quadrangle 10y ago
Given that the fundamental concept of software patents is bad, not only in principle but in practice, there's burden on anyone suggesting the good/bad question to validate that it's even a legitimate question. It's like the creationism/evolution "debate". I can simply say that there's no validity at all to the creationism arguments without providing any argument at all. Similar to the idea that I don't need to provide an argument to reject any other sort of baseless idea of false equivalence or unwarranted appeal to agnosticism.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoIf your premise is that "patents are not good" then why even ask the question about software patents? It's rather disingenuous, the assumption with the structure of your question is "within the framework of 'patents can be good'".
- quadrangle 10y agoWell, I indeed do not believe that patents are actually good, but there's far more merit to the unconvincing arguments that patents can be good than to any arguments that software patents can be good. There are good reasons that many people (particularly among those who understand software) fundamentally oppose the entire concept of software patents without opposing all patents.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago"I'm obviously right, so there" is not an argument. If you want to convince a poor foolish Philistine like myself, you need to actually discuss your evidence and conclusions.