|
Authored by: PolR on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 05:37 PM EST |
Finally I think the argument about treble damages is counter
productive. It
might be true in the real world, but this type of objection can
always be
twisted into the software developer is misguided and would be even
more
productive if he looked at patents.
Please explain how this
twisting works in practice. I just don't see the point.
- Many
programmers are forbidden by their employers upon advice from counsel from
reading patents for this very reason.
- This is not an argument about the
programmer being productive. This is an argument that the costs/benefits
analysis doesn't work out for the programmer because even if he is more
productive he is still not productive enough to overcome the costs side of the
analysis. The liability aspect cannot be dismissed because it is part of the
over all analysis.
- This is an argument that the USPTO should do their
homework and check whether patent law works in practice according to theory.
This is not an argument that case law must be overturned, although the analysis
may eventually lead to this conclusion.
Please remember, the issue this
response raises is whether patent law actually promote innovation when it comes
to software. It is not whether case law is correct. We are not arguing in front
of a court. We are giving the USPTO feed-back on how things play out in real
life as opposed to how they should play out in theory.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|