> I don't personally have a problem with software patents in principle. You've come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement it, and you

> I don't personally have a problem with software patents in principle. You've come up with a brilliant idea, you spent time and money to implement it, and you want to make sure you receive the credit for it. I get that. That's certainly one principle. But literally implemented "principles" are often toxic when it comes to public policy. I largely think that's due to a failure to think through the effects on the entire system. The principle is emotionally appealing, but ends up having undesired or even disastrous primary- and/or side- effects in the real world. In the patent case, we have a Mexican Standoff[1] in that virtually every player is vulnerable (violates one or more patents knowingly or unknowingly) and the only defense is stockpiling more armaments (patents) and shooters (legal staff). The risks and barriers to entry to small players are high. And that doesn't account for the actions of parasitic agencies like patent trolls. That said, things are largely more open now in practice. The level of interchange of ideas and code is far, far greater now than ever before. That culture didn't die or go away -- it exploded right along with the rest of computing. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff