3 ms·
> The point of the USPTO is to provide a mechanism for carving up the universe of ideas into plots of land where ownership is clear and backed up by the force
by ergothus 7y ago
> The point of the USPTO is to provide a mechanism for carving up the universe of ideas into plots of land where ownership is clear and backed up by the force of the state. You can charge rent on it, you can develop it yourself, you can leave it idle, it’s yours.
The point of patent laws is to encourage the spread of knowledge. To put it another way, it's NOT yours, but we'll let you act like it for a bit in order to make sure the knowledge gets out. If we've created a situation where the "land of ideas" is remaining fallow, then the process isn't working as intended.
> The problem I believe, is that software innovators are taught not to worry about patents
Who's the innovator? What side of the worry?
The software companies I've been in have been all about MAKING patents. Teaching special classes, polling workers to see if they've done anything patentable.
Worrying about violating patents is a different story.
Meanwhile, as an individual coder doing anything outside a corporate market, the message is that it's too expensive and difficult to "worry" about violating them.
- riazrizvi 7y ago> If we've created a situation where the "land of ideas" is remaining fallow, then the process isn't working as intended. I think you mean, ‘has fallow spots’. It seems to me that writing law is similar to building software systems; you always want a perfectly effective and economical system but you never have that ideal. So good engineers don’t stand up and say this system isn’t perfect, it’s obvious. What’s the proposed improvement? That is interesting.