|
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, February 02 2013 @ 11:07 AM EST |
I just don't buy this view.
Company A is sued for patent infringement. If they are found liable the damages
are 100 millions. If on top of that the developers has read the patent the
damages is 300 millions. There is no way the increment in productivity is worth
200 millions.
It is the *legal* department which sets the policy that developers should not
read patents for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph. This is evidence
that lawyers understand this costs/benefits analysis, assumptions that patents
are good notwithstanding. Lawyers do not think the way you say they do.
The argument is not that the value of patents is zero. This argument is
worthless because it is way too easy to falsify. Any value no matter how small
or insignificant is greater than zero. This is why we are not arguing that.
The argument is that the costs of patents far outweigh the benefits. This means
we have to talk about the cost side of the equation. If we follow your
suggestions all references to costs are pulled out of the argument. This is a
loosing strategy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|