by rakingleaves on 6/23/12, 3:05 AM with 50 comments
by spodek on 6/23/12, 3:55 AM
Tech people I know generally agree that patents and copyright stifle innovation. They may once have helped, but no longer.
Business people I know believe patents help create entrepreneurship. They think about it from a founder's perspective (they haven't founded companies themselves) and think patents would help that person establish a foothold against incumbents. They ask, "Without patent protection, how can someone get paid for their creation?"
As I see it, the business people don't have relevant experience. They're talking about a myth that doesn't exist anymore if it ever did. People who innovate and create have relevant experience and know how patents and copyright are used in practice.
At least this judge understands too. I hope his acts catch on.
The more relevant question seems "Without patent protection, how can patent lawyers get paid?" because patent lawyers is what the system creates, at the expense of technological innovation, as I see it anyway.
by angli on 6/23/12, 3:59 AM
Imagine if a right-wing Christian judge tosses out anti-creationism lawsuits, or pro-RIAA judges toss out anti-RIAA lawsuits. Even worse, imagine a judge indirectly on the RIAA payroll! Granted, these are all a long ways away from this case, but I believe that applauding this judge's actions is the wrong reaction.
by stephengillie on 6/23/12, 3:31 AM
by vineet on 6/23/12, 4:06 AM
edit: added the "to the industry" part.
by jeffnappi on 6/23/12, 4:58 AM
by spacestation on 6/23/12, 5:44 AM
- the moral of the story is steal and get the stolen goods into as many 3rd party hands as possible, so that by taking it away from would cause chaos and outrage. "Don't be evil"? That's criminal and evil at perfection.