4 ms·
This kind of stuff will go on, all the way down the slippery slope of craziness, until Congress acts and does the only logical thing - ban software/methodology/
by arbuge 14y ago
This kind of stuff will go on, all the way down the slippery slope of craziness, until Congress acts and does the only logical thing - ban software/methodology/business process patents in their entirety. Meanwhile the patent trolls will continue to enrich themselves to the tune of billions of dollars. (Around $20B in 2012 by the way - that last comment isn't hyperbole).
- dylangs1030 14y agoNot necessarily. If you amend the way in which patents are granted, tighten the criteria for a grantable patent, and change the ways patents are enforced, you have a chance to reform the system. What you say could be true, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water until you've tried other ways first. EDIT: This is also a technology issue. If patent offices had a better understanding of Wi-Fi and practical applications of public internet, a patent wouldn't be granted to Innovatio that would give them a legal position, and this circumstance wouldn't arise. Keep the patent system, but educate the system on rapid technology advances. It's stale, but amendable.
- Kliment 14y agoI personally now believe the patent system deserves to die in its entirety. It is not producing any value, it is not resulting in any innovation, it just strikes fear into the hearts of those of us who would dare attempt to make something meaningful.
- potatolicious 14y agoThis is a common belief in the software industry - and almost only in the software industry. Software patents != all patents There are fields where R&D costs are astronomical, and patents are a barrier that allows this enormous amount of money to be spent. Keep in mind that software patents are only a tiny slice of the whole patent pie.
- arbuge 14y agoI agree with this last part. Pharmaceutical patents for example come to mind. Those are clearly not software/methodology/business process patents though - I don't think recognizing them would be difficult.
- betterunix 14y agoI have a different take on pharmaceutical patents: the research costs could largely be covered with NIH grants, and the pharmaceutical companies should only be in the position of producing the drugs that grant-funded research discovers. Why should the public have to pay absurdly high prices for medication because of the special treatment big pharma gets from the government? Let the pharmaceutical companies compete, and we can get our medications at a fraction of the price (and maybe not have to rely on the notoriously abusive health insurance companies just to do what our doctors tell us to do). While we are at it, let's disband the DEA and stop protecting the pharmaceutical companies' market from drugs we could be growing in our backyards.
- potatolicious 14y ago> "While we are at it, let's disband the DEA and stop protecting the pharmaceutical companies' market from drugs we could be growing in our backyards." Drugs != marijuana - the DEA's mandate extends well beyond that of policing pot use. There are plenty of chemical substances of substantial and extreme harm that are currently under the umbrella of the DEA and shouldn't leave it. It's somewhat funny that this is in the same thread as "a small segment of patents are bad, specifically the patents I deal with personally, so let's dismantle the whole system", since your stance seems to break down to "some drugs are wrongly regulated, specifically the drugs I deal with personally, so let's dismantle the whole system".
- pstuart 14y agoSorry, but I'll have to disagree. The DEA operates in the criminal realm and doesn't care about health (it only cares about itself, really). The only drug enforcement we need is an FDA that ensures that what is on the label matches what is in the product itself, and that standards are set for guidance in their use. If you want to worry about dangerous drugs being available on the streets you should start with alcohol and tobacco.
- JulianMorrison 14y agoI think that reforming the system would be harder, more precarious, and not worth the bother. It would be a lot of fuss and hard to interest reformers in, while easily arousing lobbying pushback from trolls. There would be continual pressure to compromise the purity of a well tuned working system into something that still has room for the trolls to continue their trolling. And when the spotlight was off it, it would start to slip back towards the way it was, with extension bills being nodded through. Honestly it'd be both simpler to rouse interest for, and simpler to argue for, a total repeal. The squawking would be louder, but the final result would throw the ball back into the troll's court - to sneakily extend something is a lot easier than to re-implement it when it has been scrapped entirely.