|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
I would have thought that the logical requirement is for someone to prove that
they do?
We have a field where the mojority of practicioners who are sued for patent
infringement have never looked at a patent. How is stopping them from working
helping anyone except the rent-seekers?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: llanitedave on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
<i>If you can objectively prove that patents do not help
innovation and thus represent a cost to society that is
greater than it's benefits, is it then still a moral
position or belief?</i>
I don't think it's possible to objectively show anything of
the kind, since "benefit to society" is itself a subjective
concept that people with different points of view will
disagree on. What Richard Stallman considers a cost to
society, Bill Gates might consider a benefit. First you
have to find agreement on what costs and benefits to society
actually look like. Only then can you determine whether a
particular practice creates those effects.
---
Of course we need to communicate -- that goes without saying![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
