7 ms·
I think I covered one major distinction well. Copy software has 0 cost, copying matter has some. This is just a re-wording and perspective change on "software p
by sqeaky 9y ago
I think I covered one major distinction well. Copy software has 0 cost, copying matter has some. This is just a re-wording and perspective change on "software patents are just math" angle.
Some people feel that since there is no copying cost, software favors the little guy more than with physical goods, so normal patent protection doesn't provide an benefit. These people claim that a big big evil corporation could start making a million of their widget per month and out compete them, but with software this cannot happen per their arguments. I think these people acknowledge that both physical and software patents get abused and are imperfect but feel that physical patents provide enough gain to offset their downsides.
I disagree with those people completely. I am unaware of ANY actual evidence that patents help.
- yxhuvud 9y agoThey are currently necessary for the payment structure in the medical industry. I'm not saying they couldn't be replaced for that somehow, but simply removing patents without having something in place would be very disruptive there.
- valuearb 9y agothey are already far more disruptive everywhere else
- pnw_hazor 9y agoYour distinction doesn't make any sense. Besides, you can patent a gadget without ever building one. In other words you can patent a CAD diagram. Then you could use your gadget patent to prevent anyone from legally building your gadget (in the US assuming a US patent) I am aware of actual evidence that patents help, if enabling small companies to withstand pressure from behemoth companies is considered help.
- sqeaky 9y agoCould you share this evidence? Because I haven't seen it.