|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 06:41 AM EST |
Aren't patents anticompetative by definition?
State-granted monopoly and all that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 09:55 AM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 10:43 AM EST
- No - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 02:07 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: albert on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 01:26 PM EST |
that some s/w devs think such patents are OK. Excluding those who have or seek
some kind of interest in them, financial or otherwise, and those who are against
them, who's left? A population who never really thought about it, never
researched it, or just doesn't care. I believe, based on the most cogent
arguments _for_ software patents, that no logical case can be made in favor of
them. An uninformed, or misinformed group can never make a valid argument. So
we're left with those who seek financial gain from them, those who don't, and
those who's opinions aren't based on the facts of the matter.
In the old days, patents on machines granted the holder with a limited monopoly.
The holder could license the patent to others. Sometimes, the holder refused
to license, keeping the market to himself. Sometimes, he calculated that
greater profits could be had by licensing to others. If you can't supply the
market demand, licensing is 'free' money. Some companies make _all_ of their
profits from licensing. It's cheaper than doing your own manufacturing and
distribution. S/w patents don't fit this model.
The mobile phone market is _huge_. One might expect a lot of licensing to be
happening, but folks don't like to pay for bogopatents; it sticks in their craw.
Software patents are bogopatents, that's the crux of the issue.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
