3 ms·

The verdict would suggest, and it's a common misunderstanding to think that, the person who comes up with the idea first is more important for innovation than t

• atomical 16y ago
  If the world worked this way no one would innovate because the bigger players would start their copy machines every time someone with courage and a few great ideas sought to change the world. If someone has a plan to rid us of the patent system and protect innovation I have yet to hear it...
  • kls 16y ago
    The real world does not work that way, there is a lot of time, energy and risk put into success. The big players tend to opt for purchasing the little guy because the time, energy and risk have already been accounted for. Even the big guys fail at endeavors so many times it makes more sense to acquire the small guys who has mixed the formula correctly.
  • kjksf 16y ago
    This is a common claim but easily debunked. We know that patent protection is not necessary for innovation. Patents are relatively new invention (1623 in UK per Wikipedia). And yet there were so many things invented before that, of much more fundamental nature than any software patent. Second argument is an economic thought experiment. Let's say there is no word processing software yet and there's a million dollars to be made in word processing software. If we go by your "no innovation without monopoly" rule, no one will invent word processing out of fear that someone else will take part of the possible profits. That's complete bollocks. If there's money in it, people will do it. Patents are more likely to be harmful because they limit competition and lack of competition hurts customers with higher prices for existing stuff and less possibility to build on stuff that has been done before. This case shows this well: the guy's idea might be swell, but do we really expect everyone to either not to anything similar in the future or pay him $625 million for the privilege? Does anyone really claims that given billions of educated people on the planet no one would come up with this idea independently even if this one guy kept it to himself?
    • GHFigs 16y ago
      If there's money in it, people will do it. Hence, by allowing inventors to secure a temporary patent monopoly, you greatly magnify the profit potential, encouraging risk and speculation that might not otherwise be worth the time and capital. Patents are more likely to be harmful because they limit competition and lack of competition hurts customers with higher prices for existing stuff and less possibility to build on stuff that has been done before. Nonsense. You're talking about turning everything into a commodity, which by definition means everything trends towards being the same. Sure, it drives prices down, but it makes improving the product a sucker's game. Suppose your company can make 10,000 widgets a month. My company can make 7,500 widgets a month, but they're twice as good as your widgets because we invested more in widget R&D, and we are able to ask a higher price for them. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to patent my improved widget, and you're smart enough to realize that my widgets are better, so you copy them. Now you're making the same widgets I am, but more of them. Damn, looks like investing in R&D was dumb.
• kls 16y ago
  Again why? Apple did not praise Google for Android or Microsoft for windows, no they sued them, well in the case of Android they went after the handset makers because Google's portfolio would have done more damage to Apple than Apple's to Google. Under the rules of the current game why should this guy be any different? Because he is small, Why are the little guys to praise the big guys while the Big guys sue the little guys if they do the same.