"I have no idea why you would conclude that the elimination of software patents equates to "no legal protections"." ...I think you are missing the point of labeling an argument as a "false dilemma".
"We live in a world where software patents are accepted in the U.S. yet open source projects already have essentially no legal protection from patents. They can't afford to get any. Companies don't sue them because they know they have no money." Tell that to SCO. Many (if not most) major open source projects are backed by major corporations which have plenty of money. "This is about the most awful idea I've ever heard of. You guys must have never been to court or followed a court case because you obviously have no idea how much it costs to bring a case to conclusion. The only thing that differs here than what is currently in effect is that the inventor has to "prove" his patent in court, whatever that means. That still involves depositions, motions, research, and a jury trial (they always want a jury trial because a jury is bound to be far more clueless than a judge). " Yeah, thats the point. Making it expensive to enforce your patent would reduce the appeal for patent trolls. On Mar 6, 2:12 am, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 5, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Nick Brown <nwbr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But the Facebook/ConnectU situation did happen in a world of patents, > > they were just insufficient to help ConnectU. I'll fully agree that > > giving a limited monopoly for a limited period of time does give an > > incentive to both innovate and then disclose your innovations instead > > of keeping them as trade, but can't we agree that the current system > > has flaws that can be fixed? > > > Isn't this exactly what I said in my previous email? I even offered two > > suggestions which I think would improve the current system significantly. > > > The notion that we must either live in a > > world with the current patent system or a world with no legal > > protections for ideas is a false dilemma, there are plenty of other > > alternatives. > > > Absolutely agreed. > > I have no idea why you would conclude that the elimination of software > patents equates to "no legal protections". I would also ask the question, > "no legal protections for whom"? We live in a world where software patents > are accepted in the U.S. yet open source projects already have essentially no > legal protection from patents. They can't afford to get any. Companies don't > sue them because they know they have no money. They'll just wait for someone > with deep pockets to come along to use the software and then sue them. When > many of the greatest advances in the last 15 or more years have come in open > source software how can you possibly argue that this is good for innovation? > > > > > One that is bounced around a lot is to make it much more difficult for > > patents to be granted, by improving how the patent office tests for > > novelty. My first problem with that idea is that it is already too > > difficult for small or independent inventors (yes, I know "coding in > > your mother's basement" is a Hollywood stereotype, I was using it as a > > form of figure of speech), and such a change would only exacerbate the > > problem for them while making it slightly more difficult for large > > like IBM or Google (as a disclosure, I should probably mention that I > > work for IBM, and these are my and only my opinions, blah, blah, blah) > > and their armies of lawyers to get around. And the second is that in > > many cases, testing for novelty is very hard. There are some > > inventions that are clearly novel, some that clearly are not, but I > > have a feeling most are going to be in between. > > > Agreed again. Which is one more reason why I think the current system works > > pretty well: make the bar to file a patent relatively low (for all the good > > reasons that you gave) and let the market decide (i.g. go to court) if ever > > a patent suit actually happens. This guarantees that most of the useless > > patents that get filed every day won't waste too much taxpayers and small > > companies/inventors money while guaranteeing that the software patents > > that matter will actually receive the full attention of the legal system. > > Making patents harder to get is great. Making them impossible to get for > anything you can't physically touch would be even greater. Yes, that's my > opinion but it is based on 30 years of experience. > > > > > Another idea I'd like to put forward is to admit that the granting of > > a patent is no more than a rubber stamp and the actual test of novelty > > doesn't occur until either a legal challenge is made on the patent or > > until a lawsuit is filed against a violator of that patent, where more > > of the burden of proof gets put on the inventor. Then the actual > > granting of a patent can be streamlined so it is easier for > > independent inventors to go through the process (or even make it > > closer to copyright law where you are automatically granted copyrights > > when you produce something). Patent trolling would become less viable > > if it is harder to get a court to agree with your patent. Essentially > > we would just be moving some of the decision making from the executive > > branch to the judicial branch, which I contend would be more effective > > since then you have advocates for both sides debating the merits of > > the patent. > > > Agreed again. Glad to see someone share my views. > > This is about the most awful idea I've ever heard of. You guys must have > never been to court or followed a court case because you obviously have no > idea how much it costs to bring a case to conclusion. The only thing that > differs here than what is currently in effect is that the inventor has to > "prove" his patent in court, whatever that means. That still involves > depositions, motions, research, and a jury trial (they always want a jury > trial because a jury is bound to be far more clueless than a judge). > > Ralph -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@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.
