3 ms·
Look, I explained what I thought the patent system was designed to do. You explain a completely different thing. If I'm wrong about my underlying premise, I'm w
by raganwald 16y ago
Look, I explained what I thought the patent system was designed to do. You explain a completely different thing. If I'm wrong about my underlying premise, I'm wrong and I appreciate the correction. I'll look into it.
But when you say that my argument is "absurdity that borders on embarrassing," you take an otherwise interesting discussion and ruin it with ad hominems. I can't find the strength to get into anything further on the topic.
Good day to you, sir.
- ergo98 16y agoAs downtrodden and abused as you might pretend to feel, claiming that I resorted to an ad hominem is quite fallacious: My comment was specifically and only about the argument (which was a variation of the "Apple is always the inventor" theme that is so popular among a few), not about the speaker. It is, quite literally, the exact opposite of which you claim. Though the image of you putting on your top hat and adjusting your monocle was delightful. I pray that you haven't succumbed to the vapors. Patents (which trace back to Venice circa 1474) were always were protections for individual inventors and creators. The "everyone churn out patents for the company to lay a monster landclaim --- just take what you find and add "with a computer" or "with a touchscreen" and we're golden", with patent ownership reverting to the corporate entity, is an altogether recent concept.