7 ms·
Sorry, 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 tha
by woodson 16y ago
Sorry, 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.