|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 05:17 AM EDT |
Agreed, and there's plenty of historical evidence for this stance:
Steam Engine
Crank Shaft
Heavier-than-air Flight
Lightbulbs
Cellulouse Film
Radio
And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 05:35 AM EDT |
It carries with it the drive to stifle any form of competition. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stegu on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 07:27 AM EDT |
Ending software patents is part of the way towards that goal. Ending stupid
software patents is in turn one step on that path, and one that we are seeing
real hope of achieving. By saying "no, we shouldn't abolish overbroad
software patents, we should abolish all patents, anything less is not worth
doing", you are making a destructive argument that comes precariously close
to one particularly nasty kind of trolling: taking an extremist, overbroad point
of view that is likely to alienate supporters of the more narrow current agenda,
and make them doubtful about the merits of the real issue at hand.
Recognize your friends, and work with them towards a common goal, even if it is
not as far-reaching as you would want it to be. Don't take the extremist troll
point of view. Ending all patents is a later and much more controversial issue,
and that is a battle that is not even close to happening yet. In the meantime,
you should welcome even baby steps in the right direction.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 07 2013 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
Because inventors would NOT document their inventions - so
the knowledge was lost when they died. The purpose is to
incentivize inventors putting their knowledge into the public
domain, by granting them a time-limited monopoly in return.
That concept - incentivize inventors to put their knowledge
into the public domain, is still valid.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|