Comments on: What’s the Pro-Software-Patent Argument? http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Tue, 14 Feb 2012 12:51:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: zelah http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-65490 zelah Sun, 31 May 2009 06:50:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-65490 <p>A potential change that I think might be good for the patent system as regards software, would be a requirement that all patented software be disclosed in actual human readable source code. This would allow more individuals to know what the state of the art is and would lead to improvements on patented ideas by others. Further, there could be a requirement that all subsequent improvements borrowing significantly from the patented inventions be also published as human readable source code. Thanks. I look forward to reading some responses.</p> A potential change that I think might be good for the patent system as regards software, would be a requirement that all patented software be disclosed in actual human readable source code. This would allow more individuals to know what the state of the art is and would lead to improvements on patented ideas by others. Further, there could be a requirement that all subsequent improvements borrowing significantly from the patented inventions be also published as human readable source code. Thanks. I look forward to reading some responses.

]]> By: zelah http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-65489 zelah Sun, 31 May 2009 06:39:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-65489 <p>I have not read any pro-software patent arguments but this issue concerns me deeply. I am the type of person who likes to invent new things. That being said, I believe I am on to a very significant idea in the field of data compression. Would you deny me, the lone inventor, from profiting from my great idea just because the patent laws, which I think we can all agree produce a public good in the general case, have been misapplied in the realm of software. I concede that there have been many patents granted for software "inventions" that really aren't inventions at all, but are not those that really are deserving, deserving of legal protection? I would argue that it is those programmers who would innovate the most who should be most supportive of software patents, that is, if by innovation, we mean creating new things. Could the public good not be enhanced if we as individual programmers were to shift our focus from applications to algorithms. Anyone can cut and paste, package code, and sell it, and I think those with money and established businesses are best suited to this role. Programmers who truly want to enhance the state of the art in software systems and in the process reap the commensurate financial rewards, should just innovate and leave the packaging to others. Perhaps we should not condemn software patents but just their misuse. If I am way off base about this, I would like to know what you think. And if you agree with me then please comment and spread the ideas. Thanks.</p> I have not read any pro-software patent arguments but this issue concerns me deeply. I am the type of person who likes to invent new things. That being said, I believe I am on to a very significant idea in the field of data compression. Would you deny me, the lone inventor, from profiting from my great idea just because the patent laws, which I think we can all agree produce a public good in the general case, have been misapplied in the realm of software. I concede that there have been many patents granted for software “inventions” that really aren't inventions at all, but are not those that really are deserving, deserving of legal protection? I would argue that it is those programmers who would innovate the most who should be most supportive of software patents, that is, if by innovation, we mean creating new things. Could the public good not be enhanced if we as individual programmers were to shift our focus from applications to algorithms. Anyone can cut and paste, package code, and sell it, and I think those with money and established businesses are best suited to this role. Programmers who truly want to enhance the state of the art in software systems and in the process reap the commensurate financial rewards, should just innovate and leave the packaging to others. Perhaps we should not condemn software patents but just their misuse. If I am way off base about this, I would like to know what you think. And if you agree with me then please comment and spread the ideas. Thanks.

]]> By: zelah http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-62056 zelah Sun, 31 May 2009 02:50:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-62056 <p>A potential change that I think might be good for the patent system as regards software, would be a requirement that all patented software be disclosed in actual human readable source code. This would allow more individuals to know what the state of the art is and would lead to improvements on patented ideas by others. Further, there could be a requirement that all subsequent improvements borrowing significantly from the patented inventions be also published as human readable source code. Thanks. I look forward to reading some responses.</p> A potential change that I think might be good for the patent system as regards software, would be a requirement that all patented software be disclosed in actual human readable source code. This would allow more individuals to know what the state of the art is and would lead to improvements on patented ideas by others. Further, there could be a requirement that all subsequent improvements borrowing significantly from the patented inventions be also published as human readable source code. Thanks. I look forward to reading some responses.

]]> By: zelah http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-62055 zelah Sun, 31 May 2009 02:39:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-62055 <p>I have not read any pro-software patent arguments but this issue concerns me deeply. I am the type of person who likes to invent new things. That being said, I believe I am on to a very significant idea in the field of data compression. Would you deny me, the lone inventor, from profiting from my great idea just because the patent laws, which I think we can all agree produce a public good in the general case, have been misapplied in the realm of software. I concede that there have been many patents granted for software "inventions" that really aren't inventions at all, but are not those that really are deserving, deserving of legal protection? I would argue that it is those programmers who would innovate the most who should be most supportive of software patents, that is, if by innovation, we mean creating new things. Could the public good not be enhanced if we as individual programmers were to shift our focus from applications to algorithms. Anyone can cut and paste, package code, and sell it, and I think those with money and established businesses are best suited to this role. Programmers who truly want to enhance the state of the art in software systems and in the process reap the commensurate financial rewards, should just innovate and leave the packaging to others. Perhaps we should not condemn software patents but just their misuse. If I am way off base about this, I would like to know what you think. And if you agree with me then please comment and spread the ideas. Thanks.</p> I have not read any pro-software patent arguments but this issue concerns me deeply. I am the type of person who likes to invent new things. That being said, I believe I am on to a very significant idea in the field of data compression. Would you deny me, the lone inventor, from profiting from my great idea just because the patent laws, which I think we can all agree produce a public good in the general case, have been misapplied in the realm of software. I concede that there have been many patents granted for software “inventions” that really aren't inventions at all, but are not those that really are deserving, deserving of legal protection? I would argue that it is those programmers who would innovate the most who should be most supportive of software patents, that is, if by innovation, we mean creating new things. Could the public good not be enhanced if we as individual programmers were to shift our focus from applications to algorithms. Anyone can cut and paste, package code, and sell it, and I think those with money and established businesses are best suited to this role. Programmers who truly want to enhance the state of the art in software systems and in the process reap the commensurate financial rewards, should just innovate and leave the packaging to others. Perhaps we should not condemn software patents but just their misuse. If I am way off base about this, I would like to know what you think. And if you agree with me then please comment and spread the ideas. Thanks.

]]> By: zelah http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-59484 zelah Sun, 31 May 2009 01:50:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-59484 <p>A potential change that I think might be good for the patent system as regards software, would be a requirement that all patented software be disclosed in actual human readable source code. This would allow more individuals to know what the state of the art is and would lead to improvements on patented ideas by others. Further, there could be a requirement that all subsequent improvements borrowing significantly from the patented inventions be also published as human readable source code. Thanks. I look forward to reading some responses.</p> A potential change that I think might be good for the patent system as regards software, would be a requirement that all patented software be disclosed in actual human readable source code. This would allow more individuals to know what the state of the art is and would lead to improvements on patented ideas by others. Further, there could be a requirement that all subsequent improvements borrowing significantly from the patented inventions be also published as human readable source code. Thanks. I look forward to reading some responses.

]]> By: zelah http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-59483 zelah Sun, 31 May 2009 01:39:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-59483 <p>I have not read any pro-software patent arguments but this issue concerns me deeply. I am the type of person who likes to invent new things. That being said, I believe I am on to a very significant idea in the field of data compression. Would you deny me, the lone inventor, from profiting from my great idea just because the patent laws, which I think we can all agree produce a public good in the general case, have been misapplied in the realm of software. I concede that there have been many patents granted for software "inventions" that really aren't inventions at all, but are not those that really are deserving, deserving of legal protection? I would argue that it is those programmers who would innovate the most who should be most supportive of software patents, that is, if by innovation, we mean creating new things. Could the public good not be enhanced if we as individual programmers were to shift our focus from applications to algorithms. Anyone can cut and paste, package code, and sell it, and I think those with money and established businesses are best suited to this role. Programmers who truly want to enhance the state of the art in software systems and in the process reap the commensurate financial rewards, should just innovate and leave the packaging to others. Perhaps we should not condemn software patents but just their misuse. If I am way off base about this, I would like to know what you think. And if you agree with me then please comment and spread the ideas. Thanks.</p> I have not read any pro-software patent arguments but this issue concerns me deeply. I am the type of person who likes to invent new things. That being said, I believe I am on to a very significant idea in the field of data compression. Would you deny me, the lone inventor, from profiting from my great idea just because the patent laws, which I think we can all agree produce a public good in the general case, have been misapplied in the realm of software. I concede that there have been many patents granted for software “inventions” that really aren't inventions at all, but are not those that really are deserving, deserving of legal protection? I would argue that it is those programmers who would innovate the most who should be most supportive of software patents, that is, if by innovation, we mean creating new things. Could the public good not be enhanced if we as individual programmers were to shift our focus from applications to algorithms. Anyone can cut and paste, package code, and sell it, and I think those with money and established businesses are best suited to this role. Programmers who truly want to enhance the state of the art in software systems and in the process reap the commensurate financial rewards, should just innovate and leave the packaging to others. Perhaps we should not condemn software patents but just their misuse. If I am way off base about this, I would like to know what you think. And if you agree with me then please comment and spread the ideas. Thanks.

]]> By: markit http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-46928 markit Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:09:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-46928 <p>Does any of those that speak pro-sw patents, even know what software developening is? Anyone a programmer?<br>Software patents are really bad, a legalized thief of honest programmer's work, and they will hurt very badly society as a whole, since the pervasive nature of software in modern society.<br>Having monopolies on a vital part of people life could be the argument those "don't understand what software is but patents are good, so software patents have to be good also" blinded souls can maybe understand... maybe</p> Does any of those that speak pro-sw patents, even know what software developening is? Anyone a programmer?
Software patents are really bad, a legalized thief of honest programmer’s work, and they will hurt very badly society as a whole, since the pervasive nature of software in modern society.
Having monopolies on a vital part of people life could be the argument those “don’t understand what software is but patents are good, so software patents have to be good also” blinded souls can maybe understand… maybe

]]> By: markit http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-38603 markit Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:09:48 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-38603 <p>Does any of those that speak pro-sw patents, even know what software developening is? Anyone a programmer? Software patents are really bad, a legalized thief of honest programmer's work, and they will hurt very badly society as a whole, since the pervasive nature of software in modern society. Having monopolies on a vital part of people life could be the argument those "don't understand what software is but patents are good, so software patents have to be good also" blinded souls can maybe understand... maybe</p> Does any of those that speak pro-sw patents, even know what software developening is? Anyone a programmer? Software patents are really bad, a legalized thief of honest programmer’s work, and they will hurt very badly society as a whole, since the pervasive nature of software in modern society. Having monopolies on a vital part of people life could be the argument those “don’t understand what software is but patents are good, so software patents have to be good also” blinded souls can maybe understand… maybe

]]> By: Noel http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-46927 Noel Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:56:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-46927 <p>Jim, we discussed papers by Cockburn (and I believe Merges). I addressed your critiques where you pointed out excerpts of my writing, including a post where I said there is a "consensus" among academics rather than limiting the pool to the three I discussed in the blog. I returned your email, only to get no reply.<br><br>Many of the papers I"ve reviewed say more than this: "most are directed to showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software publishing industry."</p> Jim, we discussed papers by Cockburn (and I believe Merges). I addressed your critiques where you pointed out excerpts of my writing, including a post where I said there is a “consensus” among academics rather than limiting the pool to the three I discussed in the blog. I returned your email, only to get no reply.

Many of the papers I”ve reviewed say more than this: “most are directed to showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software publishing industry.”

]]> By: Noel http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-38602 Noel Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:56:42 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-38602 <p>Jim, we discussed papers by Cockburn (and I believe Merges). I addressed your critiques where you pointed out excerpts of my writing, including a post where I said there is a "consensus" among academics rather than limiting the pool to the three I discussed in the blog. I returned your email, only to get no reply.</p> <p>Many of the papers I"ve reviewed say more than this: "most are directed to showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software publishing industry."</p> Jim, we discussed papers by Cockburn (and I believe Merges). I addressed your critiques where you pointed out excerpts of my writing, including a post where I said there is a “consensus” among academics rather than limiting the pool to the three I discussed in the blog. I returned your email, only to get no reply.

Many of the papers I”ve reviewed say more than this: “most are directed to showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software publishing industry.”

]]> By: Jim Bessen http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-46926 Jim Bessen Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:06:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-46926 <p>Noel wrote "for pro-software patents arguments, why don't you go to IPcentral and read some write-ups of Profs Merges, Lemley, Teece, Mann, Moser, Allison, Cockburn, Moore and others I've done. Their datasets combined contain thousands of patents, and their analysis, even if you disagree, should be addressed rather than dismissed with a blind eye."</p> <p><br></p> <p>Noel, as I have pointed out to you before in private, most of these papers do NOT make pro-software patent arguments and in many, you seem to misunderstand the actual results, which often seem at odds with the interpretation you supply. Where these papers address software patents at all (many do not), most are directed to showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software publishing industry. Let's not confuse that with being pro-software patent.</p> <p><br></p> <p>Moreover:<br><ul><li>most software patents are obtained by tech firms OUTSIDE the software publishing industry, so it is not clear these papers say anything dispositive about software patents in general</li><br><li>there is strong evidence that software patents account for a major part of the recent surge in patent litigation. </li></ul><br></p> <p>It is no accident that tech firms are leading efforts at patent reform. Although the problems with patents are more general, the problems with software patents seem to be especially severe.</p> Noel wrote “for pro-software patents arguments, why don’t you go to IPcentral and read some write-ups of Profs Merges, Lemley, Teece, Mann, Moser, Allison, Cockburn, Moore and others I’ve done. Their datasets combined contain thousands of patents, and their analysis, even if you disagree, should be addressed rather than dismissed with a blind eye.”


Noel, as I have pointed out to you before in private, most of these papers do NOT make pro-software patent arguments and in many, you seem to misunderstand the actual results, which often seem at odds with the interpretation you supply. Where these papers address software patents at all (many do not), most are directed to showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software publishing industry. Let’s not confuse that with being pro-software patent.


Moreover:
<ul><li>most software patents are obtained by tech firms OUTSIDE the software publishing industry, so it is not clear these papers say anything dispositive about software patents in general</li>
<li>there is strong evidence that software patents account for a major part of the recent surge in patent litigation. </li></ul>

It is no accident that tech firms are leading efforts at patent reform. Although the problems with patents are more general, the problems with software patents seem to be especially severe.

]]> By: Jim Bessen http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-38601 Jim Bessen Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:06:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-38601 <p>Noel wrote "for pro-software patents arguments, why don't you go to IPcentral and read some write-ups of Profs Merges, Lemley, Teece, Mann, Moser, Allison, Cockburn, Moore and others I've done. Their datasets combined contain thousands of patents, and their analysis, even if you disagree, should be addressed rather than dismissed with a blind eye."</p> <p>Noel, as I have pointed out to you before in private, most of these papers do NOT make pro-software patent arguments and in many, you seem to misunderstand the actual results, which often seem at odds with the interpretation you supply. Where these papers address software patents at all (many do not), most are directed to showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software publishing industry. Let's not confuse that with being pro-software patent.</p> <p>Moreover: <ul><li>most software patents are obtained by tech firms OUTSIDE the software publishing industry, so it is not clear these papers say anything dispositive about software patents in general</li> <li>there is strong evidence that software patents account for a major part of the recent surge in patent litigation. </li></ul> <p>It is no accident that tech firms are leading efforts at patent reform. Although the problems with patents are more general, the problems with software patents seem to be especially severe.</p></p> Noel wrote “for pro-software patents arguments, why don’t you go to IPcentral and read some write-ups of Profs Merges, Lemley, Teece, Mann, Moser, Allison, Cockburn, Moore and others I’ve done. Their datasets combined contain thousands of patents, and their analysis, even if you disagree, should be addressed rather than dismissed with a blind eye.”

Noel, as I have pointed out to you before in private, most of these papers do NOT make pro-software patent arguments and in many, you seem to misunderstand the actual results, which often seem at odds with the interpretation you supply. Where these papers address software patents at all (many do not), most are directed to showing that software patents have not yet harmed the software publishing industry. Let’s not confuse that with being pro-software patent.

Moreover:

  • most software patents are obtained by tech firms OUTSIDE the software publishing industry, so it is not clear these papers say anything dispositive about software patents in general
  • there is strong evidence that software patents account for a major part of the recent surge in patent litigation.

It is no accident that tech firms are leading efforts at patent reform. Although the problems with patents are more general, the problems with software patents seem to be especially severe.

]]> By: AK http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-46925 AK Wed, 13 Jun 2007 06:46:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-46925 <p>Noel, that's one interpretation. The other is that now that Bill Gates has made good, he wants laws that would limit the competition his company faces. Why do I find that more likely?</p> Noel, that’s one interpretation. The other is that now that Bill Gates has made good, he wants laws that would limit the competition his company faces. Why do I find that more likely?

]]> By: AK http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-38600 AK Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:46:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-38600 <p>Noel, that's one interpretation. The other is that now that Bill Gates has made good, he wants laws that would limit the competition his company faces. Why do I find that more likely?</p> Noel, that’s one interpretation. The other is that now that Bill Gates has made good, he wants laws that would limit the competition his company faces. Why do I find that more likely?

]]> By: Noel http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-46924 Noel Wed, 13 Jun 2007 05:01:27 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-46924 <p>Enigma, you've read my work enough to know Ive reviewed at least 100 IP articles to support patents over the past year.<br><br>Tim's post gets more and more bizarre as you re-read it. For some reason, he wants Bill Gates to be an obstinant, rigid fool that can't change his mind over a span of 16 years. Gates is too smart though, he learned how to leverage patents for his firm. Free software firms on the other hand will never learn from their mistakes.</p> Enigma, you’ve read my work enough to know Ive reviewed at least 100 IP articles to support patents over the past year.

Tim’s post gets more and more bizarre as you re-read it. For some reason, he wants Bill Gates to be an obstinant, rigid fool that can’t change his mind over a span of 16 years. Gates is too smart though, he learned how to leverage patents for his firm. Free software firms on the other hand will never learn from their mistakes.

]]> By: Noel http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-38599 Noel Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:01:27 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-38599 <p>Enigma, you've read my work enough to know Ive reviewed at least 100 IP articles to support patents over the past year.</p> <p>Tim's post gets more and more bizarre as you re-read it. For some reason, he wants Bill Gates to be an obstinant, rigid fool that can't change his mind over a span of 16 years. Gates is too smart though, he learned how to leverage patents for his firm. Free software firms on the other hand will never learn from their mistakes.</p> Enigma, you’ve read my work enough to know Ive reviewed at least 100 IP articles to support patents over the past year.

Tim’s post gets more and more bizarre as you re-read it. For some reason, he wants Bill Gates to be an obstinant, rigid fool that can’t change his mind over a span of 16 years. Gates is too smart though, he learned how to leverage patents for his firm. Free software firms on the other hand will never learn from their mistakes.

]]> By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-46923 eee_eff Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:18:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-46923 <p>Noel,<br><br>Why don't you or some one from IPCentral write a coherent article defending software patents?<br><br>In particular, I'd like to see someone address some of the very well-written and well-researched books which are critical of the present "IP" regime, such as:<br><br>Steal this Idea: the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity by Michael Perelman...</p> Noel,

Why don’t you or some one from IPCentral write a coherent article defending software patents?

In particular, I’d like to see someone address some of the very well-written and well-researched books which are critical of the present “IP” regime, such as:

Steal this Idea: the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity by Michael Perelman…

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-38598 enigma_foundry Wed, 13 Jun 2007 00:18:11 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-38598 <p>Noel,</p> <p>Why don't you or some one from IPCentral write a coherent article defending software patents?</p> <p>In particular, I'd like to see someone address some of the very well-written and well-researched books which are critical of the present "IP" regime, such as:</p> <p>Steal this Idea: the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity by Michael Perelman...</p> Noel,

Why don’t you or some one from IPCentral write a coherent article defending software patents?

In particular, I’d like to see someone address some of the very well-written and well-researched books which are critical of the present “IP” regime, such as:

Steal this Idea: the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity by Michael Perelman…

]]> By: Noel http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-46922 Noel Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:22:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-46922 <p>Tim, for pro-software patents arguments, why don't you go to IPcentral and read some write-ups of Profs Merges, Lemley, Teece, Mann, Moser, Allison, Cockburn, Moore and others I've done. Their datasets combined contain thousands of patents, and their analysis, even if you disagree, should be addressed rather than dismissed with a blind eye.</p> Tim, for pro-software patents arguments, why don’t you go to IPcentral and read some write-ups of Profs Merges, Lemley, Teece, Mann, Moser, Allison, Cockburn, Moore and others I’ve done. Their datasets combined contain thousands of patents, and their analysis, even if you disagree, should be addressed rather than dismissed with a blind eye.

]]> By: Noel http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-38597 Noel Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:22:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-38597 <p>Tim, for pro-software patents arguments, why don't you go to IPcentral and read some write-ups of Profs Merges, Lemley, Teece, Mann, Moser, Allison, Cockburn, Moore and others I've done. Their datasets combined contain thousands of patents, and their analysis, even if you disagree, should be addressed rather than dismissed with a blind eye.</p> Tim, for pro-software patents arguments, why don’t you go to IPcentral and read some write-ups of Profs Merges, Lemley, Teece, Mann, Moser, Allison, Cockburn, Moore and others I’ve done. Their datasets combined contain thousands of patents, and their analysis, even if you disagree, should be addressed rather than dismissed with a blind eye.

]]> By: Noel http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-46921 Noel Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:11:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-46921 <p>A consistent theme in Tim's writing is that he has a low threshhold for stifled innovation. One walks away thinking the technology sector will collapse tomorrow, but it makes sense when considering what Tim' actually sees as harmed: Tim implicitly argues that IPRs harm ideologies, thats why he sees significance in every molehill.<br><br>Tim might think 100 million dollars is a lot, but in fact its a cost of business in a sector where probably more than $1 trillion exchanges hands.<br><br>Tim is not really concerned with with the actual market. How on earth do you talk about barriers to entry and harm to new firms, without every talking about market entry? Oh I forgot, in the blog post right below this, Tim said he doesn't think its important to measure innovation.</p> A consistent theme in Tim’s writing is that he has a low threshhold for stifled innovation. One walks away thinking the technology sector will collapse tomorrow, but it makes sense when considering what Tim’ actually sees as harmed: Tim implicitly argues that IPRs harm ideologies, thats why he sees significance in every molehill.

Tim might think 100 million dollars is a lot, but in fact its a cost of business in a sector where probably more than $1 trillion exchanges hands.

Tim is not really concerned with with the actual market. How on earth do you talk about barriers to entry and harm to new firms, without every talking about market entry? Oh I forgot, in the blog post right below this, Tim said he doesn’t think its important to measure innovation.

]]> By: Noel http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-38596 Noel Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:11:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/06/12/whats-the-pro-software-patent-argument/#comment-38596 <p>A consistent theme in Tim's writing is that he has a low threshhold for stifled innovation. One walks away thinking the technology sector will collapse tomorrow, but it makes sense when considering what Tim' actually sees as harmed: Tim implicitly argues that IPRs harm ideologies, thats why he sees significance in every molehill.</p> <p>Tim might think 100 million dollars is a lot, but in fact its a cost of business in a sector where probably more than $1 trillion exchanges hands.</p> <p>Tim is not really concerned with with the actual market. How on earth do you talk about barriers to entry and harm to new firms, without every talking about market entry? Oh I forgot, in the blog post right below this, Tim said he doesn't think its important to measure innovation.</p> A consistent theme in Tim’s writing is that he has a low threshhold for stifled innovation. One walks away thinking the technology sector will collapse tomorrow, but it makes sense when considering what Tim’ actually sees as harmed: Tim implicitly argues that IPRs harm ideologies, thats why he sees significance in every molehill.

Tim might think 100 million dollars is a lot, but in fact its a cost of business in a sector where probably more than $1 trillion exchanges hands.

Tim is not really concerned with with the actual market. How on earth do you talk about barriers to entry and harm to new firms, without every talking about market entry? Oh I forgot, in the blog post right below this, Tim said he doesn’t think its important to measure innovation.

]]>