|
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 08:14 AM EDT |
I don't think patents were ever believed to provide social utility. They have
been sold as such but that's more spin than reality. How does giving someone a
monopoly on an idea and therefore being able to charge more for it benefit
society? Most patents can be shown as being either useless or anti-competitive.
I've no problem with people being reimbursed for their creative effort but
copyright works for that. Patents are turnpikes on the road to the future and
involve someone getting in the way of progress first - or as we see so often
these days putting up a roadblock on a well travelled route.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rebentisch on Friday, June 15 2012 @ 07:50 PM EDT |
In other words the ocean of patents/applications does not represent the ocean of
software solutions to problems.
You want more patents? Hire more patent attorneys. Not, hire more professionals
in the arts.
Now, de facto the patent systems defines the state of the art as reflected by
existing patents/applications. I know that some believe that defensive
publication is helpful and esp. in the US some believe that you could invalidate
patents by "prior art" that is not a patent. But in fact real world
innovation is an incomplete defense against bad patents.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|