3 ms·
Your analogy doesn't really hold, because software engineers probably use the software they create, so they have an incentive to make it good. Lawyers have an i
by joebadmo 16y ago
Your analogy doesn't really hold, because software engineers probably use the software they create, so they have an incentive to make it good. Lawyers have an incentive to make laws such that you need more lawyers, which the patent system succeeds at marvellously.
That's not to say that there's really an alternative, just pointing out the perverse incentive structure.
- woodson 16y agoSorry, but that doesn't make sense. Equally, one could make the case that software engineers have an incentive to make bad/incomplete/burdensome software so that they are still needed to provide fixes/updates. Lawyers also "use" the law, it still applies to them. The patent situation won't change, as the players involved are too keen of their portfolios.
- joebadmo 16y agoI think the perverse incentive you point to wrt software is a real one. I think that's why the tools that engineers use are usually the best pieces of software. I don't think patent lawyers are generally have to use patent law in the same way that software engineers have to use software.
- marshray 16y agoOf course they don't allow the patenting of processes essential to patent lawyering so the analogy doesn't hold. But my point was that the patent system really is "used" by lawyers and they do, in fact, optimize it for their purposes (e.g., extracting wealth from others who actually produce things of value).
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- joebadmo 16y agoRight, but isn't that almost diametrically opposed to what the patent system is supposed to do? It's supposed to encourage innovation, but extracting maximum wealth from the process seems like it would be detrimental. Patent lawyers don't use the patent system, they misuse it.