6 ms·

welcome to the inane world of software patents

binspace 16y ago
It's really only the threat of legal action that matters. Who wants to deal with lawyers, legal expenses, and energy spent defending your position, even if you are right? It's too bad such anti-innovative behavior is even legal.
- pyre 16y ago
  If the suing company loses, they forfeit their right to do business in the country they filed in. Sounds reasonable. It would at least stop this penny ante bullshit.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
Remember Paul Graham's words: "One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." http://paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html I made up my mind, and currently, I think the whole patent system should be abolished. Some may think we should be safe if software patents are abolished, but we're not. Make a bit of Arduino based hardware that happen to infringe a patent, and you're screwed. In short, patents are hampering the rise of Free Hardware, just like it does Free Software. It is past time we examine the effects of patents rigorously, or listen to people who have.
- nudge 16y ago
  How would you encourage the development of new pharmaceuticals (the process of which costs vast, vast sums of money and can take decades) if, as soon as the new drug is done, anyone can come and just copy the formula? I'm not pro-patents on everything, but pharmaceuticals is a case where the patent bargain seems to produce benefits in terms of drugs that otherwise might not be developed.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Your argument assumes that you need some kind of artificial encouragement to make the development of pharmaceuticals thrive. Against Intellectual Monopoly[1], shows rather strong empirical evidence to the contrary: drug development thrived before patents arrived, and didn't accelerate after. They may even have slowed down. Your argument is appealing, but most probably wrong. [1]: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...
    - nudge 16y ago
      I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but could you answer my point so I know exactly how it is that I am? In particular, exactly how is it that the large upfront R&D costs I mentioned would not be a problem in a patent-free world? Also, I wasn't assuming any kind of 'artificial encouragement'. I was talking about firms spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs, and wanting to earn that back (and, obviously, more) through patent protection. There's nothing artificial about the kind of encouragement that comes from wanting to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        I didn't address that point because that point is irrelevant. I am not interested in the well being of a particular pharmaceutical firm. I am interested in the well being of the whole field. And I suspect, so are you. It looks like you think that for pharmaceutical to thrive, it needs corporation to be "encouraged" to invest lots of money. You also seem to think that patents are a major provider of that encouragement. If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation. Empirical evidence shows that it didn't. I see only 2 explanations: either patents are not an effective encouragement (compared to already existing ones), or their disadvantages nullifies the additional encouragement.
        nudge 16y ago
        Please just explain how it is that you think we would get new, expensive-to-develop drugs, if there were no guarantee of a limited monopoly for the inventor. Forget the abstract arguments about corporations being "encouraged" or whatever you think I think. Just tell me how it would work. If it helps, imagine that you run a pharmaceutical firm, and you have the choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching a drug which, once perfected by your researchers, is not owned in any sense (even temporarily) by you, but rather immediately becomes a generic commodity worth fractions of a cent per unit, and which cannot possibly earn you back the money you spent developing it. In that situation, would you start the research? And if not, where will the new drugs come from?
- mjgoins 16y ago
  "Remember Paul Graham's words:"? Seriously? This messiah thing has got to stop.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    I used the argument of authority to get some attention. Ironically, when I first read his essay I was very sceptical. I hope my quote didn't directly trigger the up-votes, and that people actually read my last two paragraphs.
- openfly 16y ago
  I agree.
  - Groxx 16y ago
    Since you're a bit new: Devoid-of-content comments typically get downvoted. Your agreement could more easily (and more influentially) have been shown by clicking the "up" arrow next to loup-vaillant's comment. Higher-voted comments bubble up and lower ones fall, they're not sorted chronologically.

It's really only the threat of legal action that matters. Who wants to deal with lawyers, legal expenses, and energy spent defending your position, even if you are right? It's too bad such anti-innovative behavior is even legal.

pyre 16y ago
If the suing company loses, they forfeit their right to do business in the country they filed in. Sounds reasonable. It would at least stop this penny ante bullshit.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

Remember Paul Graham's words: "One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." http://paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html I made up my mind, and currently, I think the whole patent system should be abolished. Some may think we should be safe if software patents are abolished, but we're not. Make a bit of Arduino based hardware that happen to infringe a patent, and you're screwed. In short, patents are hampering the rise of Free Hardware, just like it does Free Software. It is past time we examine the effects of patents rigorously, or listen to people who have.

nudge 16y ago
How would you encourage the development of new pharmaceuticals (the process of which costs vast, vast sums of money and can take decades) if, as soon as the new drug is done, anyone can come and just copy the formula? I'm not pro-patents on everything, but pharmaceuticals is a case where the patent bargain seems to produce benefits in terms of drugs that otherwise might not be developed.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  Your argument assumes that you need some kind of artificial encouragement to make the development of pharmaceuticals thrive. Against Intellectual Monopoly[1], shows rather strong empirical evidence to the contrary: drug development thrived before patents arrived, and didn't accelerate after. They may even have slowed down. Your argument is appealing, but most probably wrong. [1]: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...
  - nudge 16y ago
    I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but could you answer my point so I know exactly how it is that I am? In particular, exactly how is it that the large upfront R&D costs I mentioned would not be a problem in a patent-free world? Also, I wasn't assuming any kind of 'artificial encouragement'. I was talking about firms spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs, and wanting to earn that back (and, obviously, more) through patent protection. There's nothing artificial about the kind of encouragement that comes from wanting to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      I didn't address that point because that point is irrelevant. I am not interested in the well being of a particular pharmaceutical firm. I am interested in the well being of the whole field. And I suspect, so are you. It looks like you think that for pharmaceutical to thrive, it needs corporation to be "encouraged" to invest lots of money. You also seem to think that patents are a major provider of that encouragement. If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation. Empirical evidence shows that it didn't. I see only 2 explanations: either patents are not an effective encouragement (compared to already existing ones), or their disadvantages nullifies the additional encouragement.
      - nudge 16y ago
        Please just explain how it is that you think we would get new, expensive-to-develop drugs, if there were no guarantee of a limited monopoly for the inventor. Forget the abstract arguments about corporations being "encouraged" or whatever you think I think. Just tell me how it would work. If it helps, imagine that you run a pharmaceutical firm, and you have the choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching a drug which, once perfected by your researchers, is not owned in any sense (even temporarily) by you, but rather immediately becomes a generic commodity worth fractions of a cent per unit, and which cannot possibly earn you back the money you spent developing it. In that situation, would you start the research? And if not, where will the new drugs come from?
mjgoins 16y ago
"Remember Paul Graham's words:"? Seriously? This messiah thing has got to stop.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  I used the argument of authority to get some attention. Ironically, when I first read his essay I was very sceptical. I hope my quote didn't directly trigger the up-votes, and that people actually read my last two paragraphs.
openfly 16y ago
I agree.
- Groxx 16y ago
  Since you're a bit new: Devoid-of-content comments typically get downvoted. Your agreement could more easily (and more influentially) have been shown by clicking the "up" arrow next to loup-vaillant's comment. Higher-voted comments bubble up and lower ones fall, they're not sorted chronologically.