3 ms·

That's a really poor metaphor. It's more a like a nuclear arms race. We focus on mutually assured destruction if you come after us. Keeps the checks and balanc

That's a really poor metaphor. It's more a like a nuclear arms race. We focus on mutually assured destruction if you come after us. Keeps the checks and balances in place and stops random invaders and gets us respect. The problem we face is the terrorists getting arms themselves (the patent trolls) and attacking us with nothing to lose. Sure it would be awesome if we had no arms and I would support disarmament but it needs to all happen at once by everyone. Until then, we have to play the game.

CamperBob2 14y ago
I've used the nuclear arms comparison before, but I've decided land mines are a better metaphor. Nuclear arms, in the view of some including myself, have (so far) proven to be a net good thing. They have forced world leaders to grow up and learn to get along with each other. They have cost us trillions of dollars to design, build, stockpile, and maintain, but if the MAD doctrine has in fact forestalled WWIII, its value is beyond any price. Not everyone agrees, of course, and that's reasonable, but still, you can't argue with the outcome of nuclear deterrence thus far. Land mines, on the other hand, kill people who have no idea what they're stepping on. They are cheap, ugly, technically-uninteresting things, often resold on illegitimate markets and used by everyone from superpowers to tin-pot psychopaths. Instead of preventing wars, or at least forcing adversaries into negotiations for their own self-preservation, land mines kill innocents and belligerents alike. And when they do kill innocent people, it happens years, even decades, after the mines were planted. They kill long after the initial conflict is over, when its outcome is no longer "innovative." So IMHO, comparing patents to nuclear weapons is an insult to nuclear weapons. (Edit: your metaphor fails on another level, as does mine. If I start a nuclear war or plant a land mine that kills a non-combatant, nobody will ever consider me a hero. But kids are brought up to respect "inventors" and the patent process. We literally celebrate people who bushwhack the productive and industrious. That's fucked up.)

CamperBob2 14y ago

I've used the nuclear arms comparison before, but I've decided land mines are a better metaphor. Nuclear arms, in the view of some including myself, have (so far) proven to be a net good thing. They have forced world leaders to grow up and learn to get along with each other. They have cost us trillions of dollars to design, build, stockpile, and maintain, but if the MAD doctrine has in fact forestalled WWIII, its value is beyond any price. Not everyone agrees, of course, and that's reasonable, but still, you can't argue with the outcome of nuclear deterrence thus far. Land mines, on the other hand, kill people who have no idea what they're stepping on. They are cheap, ugly, technically-uninteresting things, often resold on illegitimate markets and used by everyone from superpowers to tin-pot psychopaths. Instead of preventing wars, or at least forcing adversaries into negotiations for their own self-preservation, land mines kill innocents and belligerents alike. And when they do kill innocent people, it happens years, even decades, after the mines were planted. They kill long after the initial conflict is over, when its outcome is no longer "innovative." So IMHO, comparing patents to nuclear weapons is an insult to nuclear weapons. (Edit: your metaphor fails on another level, as does mine. If I start a nuclear war or plant a land mine that kills a non-combatant, nobody will ever consider me a hero. But kids are brought up to respect "inventors" and the patent process. We literally celebrate people who bushwhack the productive and industrious. That's fucked up.)