3 ms·

My thoughts are software patents are easily distinguishable from other patents, that the EU has no problem distinguishing them, that in theri very nature they i

My thoughts are software patents are easily distinguishable from other patents, that the EU has no problem distinguishing them, that in theri very nature they impede progress because in software everything builds on everything else very quickly and that's why there IS rapid progress in software, progress the consumer is the beneficiary of and which also creates a very fertile business climate for companies to create products that turn profits. The other way, it's all about lawyers and their hourly fees and innovation- and in the end business itself- suffers, except of course for the business of lawyering. Lawyers are a virus who have injected themselves into an industry and a sphere of human activity they have no place in and was doing astonishingly well both in terms of innovation and economic activity before they showed up/

superqd 14y ago
On your first point, I agree. Software patents are easily distinguishable from others, and I think most people are able to discern the difference. I believe that's why most of us find their existence so repugnant at first, because we are so familiar with what software is, and how little value is actually contained in the content of a patent. Which bubbles up through our intuition as a red flag. My main issue is that we should examine the why of why we don't like software patents, generalize from it and re-apply that to patents in general. My point is that we'd find it's not software patents in particular that are the problem, it's the fact that we as as society overpay with too much protection for something of so little value. Since we end up paying years of protection for items of so little worth, it stymies innovation in a great many instances, and diverts capital away from innovation and instead to the courts. And yes, I too could rant for days about the lawyers ;^).

superqd 14y ago

On your first point, I agree. Software patents are easily distinguishable from others, and I think most people are able to discern the difference. I believe that's why most of us find their existence so repugnant at first, because we are so familiar with what software is, and how little value is actually contained in the content of a patent. Which bubbles up through our intuition as a red flag. My main issue is that we should examine the why of why we don't like software patents, generalize from it and re-apply that to patents in general. My point is that we'd find it's not software patents in particular that are the problem, it's the fact that we as as society overpay with too much protection for something of so little value. Since we end up paying years of protection for items of so little worth, it stymies innovation in a great many instances, and diverts capital away from innovation and instead to the courts. And yes, I too could rant for days about the lawyers ;^).