Re: How true...

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

On Apr 23, 4:00 pm, "Michael J. Mahon" <mjma...@aol.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> Which is perhaps the least efficient mechanism for innovation.
>
> Most large companies are trying to *stop* innovation, since it is a
> threat to their current (or past) success.  (Of course, they would
> never say so.)

Yeah :-( In direct contradiction to the principles of free-market
economics.

> > 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.
>
> Exactly.
>
> I've always felt that independent invention should be a defense against
> patent infringement--not reading someone's patent and finding a way
> around it, but truly independently inventing a thing.

Yeah, spot on. The term "Intellectual Property" is a euphemism. It's a
bit like calling it "Metaphysical Real Estate" which is, well,
patently absurd :-)

> Then if a patent is obvious, it isn't worth much.

Unfortunately, even the common case of their being prior-art that
invalidates an obvious patent, the cost and/or difficulty of proving
such is an insurmountable hurdle.

> > I'd like to see massive financial penalties imposed on patent misuse,
> > but alas, it's a very difficult thing to prove.
>
> Yes, and this is complicated by the fact that our "justice" system's
> objective is to correctly perform all the procedures, not to arrive
> at the truth.  Add to that the relative technical incompetence of most
> judges and all juries and you have a recipe for nonsense.

Mmm, and the obvious conflict of interest that arises: would the legal
community want to fix something that is so obscenely profitable for
them?

Sooner or later people will have to realise that it's actually
economically superior to *not* commoditise certain things.

Matt