4 ms·

It's marginally better for startups. Something that would be a big-win is the nullification of the entire idea of software patents.

by jgmmo 11y ago

jimmydddd 11y ago
@jgmmo You raise an interesting question about software patents. Many people think that physical hardware devices, like an improved portable GPS device for my car, or a police radar gun, should be patent eligible. Many of those same people think that an app that performs the same functions in a mobile device should not be patent eligible. It could be argued, however, that in these cases, the hardware and software are really implementations of the same "invention."
- jgmmo 11y ago
  I only stopped at software due to the audience. I personally am not sure I believe the idea of intellectual property is defensible, at all. It's hard for me to imagine why someone, somewhere, should be allowed to dictate how I am or am not allowed to use my resources just because 'they thought of it first'. Especially since I am of the belief that there is no original thought. “There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages.” ― Mark Twain
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Its entirely to encourage innovation. A commerce thing. If you improve a pump, and try to sell it, and BigPumpsCo instantly copies the better design, then what motivation to make better pumps?
    - jgmmo 11y ago
      The term for a patent is 20 years, according to my limited understanding. That's an enormous amount of time to be able to legally have a monopoly on something like 'playing video on the internet', 'in-app purchasing', etc. Do you think when a company owns a process like that, for 20 years, that it improves innovation?

It's marginally better for startups. Something that would be a big-win is the nullification of the entire idea of software patents.

by jgmmo 11y ago

It's marginally better for startups. Something that would be a big-win is the nullification of the entire idea of software patents.

jimmydddd 11y ago

@jgmmo You raise an interesting question about software patents. Many people think that physical hardware devices, like an improved portable GPS device for my car, or a police radar gun, should be patent eligible. Many of those same people think that an app that performs the same functions in a mobile device should not be patent eligible. It could be argued, however, that in these cases, the hardware and software are really implementations of the same "invention."

jgmmo 11y ago
I only stopped at software due to the audience. I personally am not sure I believe the idea of intellectual property is defensible, at all. It's hard for me to imagine why someone, somewhere, should be allowed to dictate how I am or am not allowed to use my resources just because 'they thought of it first'. Especially since I am of the belief that there is no original thought. “There is no such thing as a new idea. It is impossible. We simply take a lot of old ideas and put them into a sort of mental kaleidoscope. We give them a turn and they make new and curious combinations. We keep on turning and making new combinations indefinitely; but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have been in use through all the ages.” ― Mark Twain
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Its entirely to encourage innovation. A commerce thing. If you improve a pump, and try to sell it, and BigPumpsCo instantly copies the better design, then what motivation to make better pumps?
  - jgmmo 11y ago
    The term for a patent is 20 years, according to my limited understanding. That's an enormous amount of time to be able to legally have a monopoly on something like 'playing video on the internet', 'in-app purchasing', etc. Do you think when a company owns a process like that, for 20 years, that it improves innovation?