Yes, Cedric, you _think_. Which is the point. There's no proof, though there are many indicators its not working as designed. My argument has always been that, given the draconian, near thought-crime nature of patent law, the burden of proof is clearly on the ones in favour of it. You're trying to twist the argument arond to: There's no proof it DOESNT work, so we should keep them.
The UK and europe easily show that you don't NEED software patents. On Sep 13, 9:03 am, Cédric Beust ♔ <ced...@beust.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:57 PM, Miroslav Pokorny < > > miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I mentioned ARM as even though they are a hardware company they too exist > > purely because of trust and excellence rather than patents. > > I'll take your word for that but I'll offer something for you to think > about: if they were located in a country with software patent laws, maybe > they would be doing even better than they are right now, precisely because > they are excellent. With software patent laws, they would be able to protect > their excellent ideas for a few years, thereby guaranteeing more sales, more > revenues, more funding for R&D, which would lead to even more innovations > coming from them. > > I think that software patent laws help great companies while hindering > mediocre ones (by preventing them from copying other people's ideas before > they have been tapped). > > -- > Cédric -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
