3 ms·
Adventured 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 in
by jsweojtj 12y ago
Adventured 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.