27 ms·
This is really impressive. It's a cogent, insightful articulation of the current situation, including the realistic constraints (e.g. that Supreme Court ruling
by redsymbol 14y ago
This is really impressive. It's a cogent, insightful articulation of the current situation, including the realistic constraints (e.g. that Supreme Court ruling re: private privileges), and a practical suggested solution that could actually be implemented in the current political environment. Don't always agree with Stallman, but this one's well done.
- fragsworth 14y agoIt may even be more practical than hinted at in the article. You have to get massive support (either from industry or special interests) for legislation to happen in any way. Industry - Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others would probably be in favor of something like this, because it would promote more development on their systems if developers feel completely safe from patent trolls. It would also be seen as a good publicity move from any of these companies.
- argv_empty 14y agoIt would also be seen as a good publicity move from any of these companies. It would definitely help convince me of the sincerity of their claims that they maintain their software patent portfolios for defensive purposes.
- duaneb 14y agoThe fact is, it's just bad business not to patent software as a defensive measure against competition, at least when you make enough money for the people with patents to sue you first. This doesn't mean anyone likes being in that position: I think some of them, at least, would appreciate being able to implement competing technologies without licensing them.
- argv_empty 14y agoYes, I'm well aware that defense is a reason for patenting things. I think it gets much easier to see that as the primary reason for doing so when the companies which do it the most also work to reduce (as opposed to increasing or exercising) the offensive power of patents.