3 ms·
Im not sure you can take a single thing, the patent system, which also exists in many other countries, and then apply that as the reason for the US to be a bast
by cdash 12y ago
Im not sure you can take a single thing, the patent system, which also exists in many other countries, and then apply that as the reason for the US to be a bastion of innovation for 200 years.
How do you even know that the US has not been innovative despite the patent system. That if the patent system did not exist, it would have progressed even further than it has.
- jsweojtj 12y agoAdventured was saying that the US is a counterexample to the proposed statement that meant non-restrictive or non existent patent systems will be bastions of innovation. In no way was Adventured arguing that because of the patent system, the US became a bastion of innovation.
- couchand 12y agoThe problem with that reply is that it's denying the antecedent. The original point was regarding a hypothetical country that jettisons its patent architecture, or never evolved a restrictive one to begin with. Using the US as a counterexample is arguing a different question. As the original comment pointed out, the US has been successful, but it could be for many confounding reasons.