3 ms·

I must not have been clear. I DO blame the player, and think that the lawyers at (e.g.) LodSys don't have the slightest clue about ethics or morality among them

I must not have been clear. I DO blame the player, and think that the lawyers at (e.g.) LodSys don't have the slightest clue about ethics or morality among them (I also think things about them that are not printable in an HN comment). I just think the proper strategy is to defeat ALL of the players at once by changing the rules, both from a cost AND a risk perspective. If you want to fight trolls mano-a-mano in lawsuits to either invalidate patents or at least knock them down in relation to a particular product or company, then more power to you, but I personally would find it terrifying to fight such a lawsuit myself if my company DEPENDS on the victory of the lawsuit. I'd gladly (once my company is profitable, anyway) donate to the cause to help take a troll down, however. :)

bobthebee 15y ago
I don't think it is productive to blame "the players". In fact, it obscures the issue. Look at it from the perspective of the patents (in a Dawkins sense). Patents want to make money. Patents grant exclusivity to something valuable. In a capitalist society they will naturally be acquired by whoever can make the most money. Maybe not initially but over time they will find the right (value maximizing) host. There is an inevitability to this. The value maximizing host seem to be so called patent trolls. The role of government is to set the rules/bounds for capitalism. With patents you could argue that there is a problem with the rules. But I don't think you can blame the players once the rules are set. Capitalism is not about morality, but profit maximizing and resource allocation. The solution is simple. Change the rules of the game. As a side note Paul Graham's patent pledge attacks the wrong side of the problem and will therefore not be effective. Instead create a pledge for companies that want to change the game and let them be vocal about it.
- SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
  Seeing capitalism as amoral discounts the fact that capitalism a system used by humans. It's humans who are being amoral to attempt to enforce obviously bad patents. A rational and moral human shouldn't enforce (or consider there to be any value in) a patent that is obviously overly broad -- any more than a rational and moral human shouldn't attempt to steal someone's house because of an error made by the government in recording the deed. I vehemently disagree that you can "blame" the patents. It's humans all the way down. I agree with you on the STRATEGY -- the best way to fix the problems is to change the rules. But I will continue to call people amoral/unethical and lob lots of hate in their direction when their behavior justifies it, regardless of whether they are technically breaking the law. A parasite is a parasite.

bobthebee 15y ago

I don't think it is productive to blame "the players". In fact, it obscures the issue. Look at it from the perspective of the patents (in a Dawkins sense). Patents want to make money. Patents grant exclusivity to something valuable. In a capitalist society they will naturally be acquired by whoever can make the most money. Maybe not initially but over time they will find the right (value maximizing) host. There is an inevitability to this. The value maximizing host seem to be so called patent trolls. The role of government is to set the rules/bounds for capitalism. With patents you could argue that there is a problem with the rules. But I don't think you can blame the players once the rules are set. Capitalism is not about morality, but profit maximizing and resource allocation. The solution is simple. Change the rules of the game. As a side note Paul Graham's patent pledge attacks the wrong side of the problem and will therefore not be effective. Instead create a pledge for companies that want to change the game and let them be vocal about it.

SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
Seeing capitalism as amoral discounts the fact that capitalism a system used by humans. It's humans who are being amoral to attempt to enforce obviously bad patents. A rational and moral human shouldn't enforce (or consider there to be any value in) a patent that is obviously overly broad -- any more than a rational and moral human shouldn't attempt to steal someone's house because of an error made by the government in recording the deed. I vehemently disagree that you can "blame" the patents. It's humans all the way down. I agree with you on the STRATEGY -- the best way to fix the problems is to change the rules. But I will continue to call people amoral/unethical and lob lots of hate in their direction when their behavior justifies it, regardless of whether they are technically breaking the law. A parasite is a parasite.