Re: How true...

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On Apr 23, 6:24 am, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:

> Not surprising--Don is one of the most innovative "garage inventors"
> on the planet.
>
> (FWIW, I have a great deal of sympathy for his position that patents
> are a *very* imperfect means to protect intellectual property,
> especially for individuals.)

I feel the same way. Unfortunately, patents are very good at one
thing: protecting big business from small business. The tragedy of
course is that in doing so, they (worst case) destroy the very thing
they're designed to foster, or (best case) allow only big business to
innovate.

I was greatly saddened when patents were allowed within the software
industry, and have similar feelings for other industries, with the
exception being for cases where R&D costs are so high that patents are
necessary to encourage the financial risk. I've long held the belief
that protection of implementations through copyright was more than
sufficient.

It's quite absurd that these days, the construction of a non-trivial
commercially viable software application is virtually impossible
without stepping on a dozen or so patents. The fact that this
routinely happens should be all the evidence required that most (if
not all) patents are based on "obvious" ideas and should be
invalidated.

I'd like to see massive financial penalties imposed on patent misuse,
but alas, it's a very difficult thing to prove.

Matt