To an extent, but it's a percent of a percent: most innovation is carried out by full-time employees of companies, and of the stuff that isn't, most is rewarded correctly. I just don't think that, "I was going to make something that would set the world alight, but there was a small chance that I'd run into patent issues, so I decided not to" is a common reason for young entrepreneurs not starting software companies.
No but it does result in cancelled projects, whether commercial or non-profit or open source.
I think you're also jumping to a false conclusion wrt full-time employees of companies carrying out the most innovation - patents yes, innovation no.
Edison, Dyson et al weren't working for big companies when they had their great ideas, and SME's generate more GDP (at least in the EU) than large companies and have greater need to innovate, as they can't just bully and buy their way out of problems.
Google innovated because it was small and it wasn't employees but the creators who innovated - if there were patents in that arena (as there are now) then they almost certainly wouldn't have got the backing and would have been sued before they could have made a difference.
You're also wrong about innovation happening even if companies lose patent cases - one of the major trends in the US and elsewhere now is to stop the innovative product or service - see the recent blackberry case, had the case gone to trial and the judge agreed then the blackberry would never have hit the streets.
The patent system isn't working particularly well any more, and was never appropriate for software. Something else might be appropriate for software but patents in a recognisable form quite simply arent.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: And the definition of "sensible patent law" is that which doesn't allow patents, right?
Date: 2006-07-15 04:46 pm (UTC)You don't think that a lack of proper reward for innovation will tend to lead to less people trying to innovate?
Re: And the definition of "sensible patent law" is that which doesn't allow patents, right?
Date: 2006-07-15 05:07 pm (UTC)Re: And the definition of "sensible patent law" is that which doesn't allow patents, right?
Date: 2006-07-15 06:09 pm (UTC)I think you're also jumping to a false conclusion wrt full-time employees of companies carrying out the most innovation - patents yes, innovation no.
Edison, Dyson et al weren't working for big companies when they had their great ideas, and SME's generate more GDP (at least in the EU) than large companies and have greater need to innovate, as they can't just bully and buy their way out of problems.
Google innovated because it was small and it wasn't employees but the creators who innovated - if there were patents in that arena (as there are now) then they almost certainly wouldn't have got the backing and would have been sued before they could have made a difference.
You're also wrong about innovation happening even if companies lose patent cases - one of the major trends in the US and elsewhere now is to stop the innovative product or service - see the recent blackberry case, had the case gone to trial and the judge agreed then the blackberry would never have hit the streets.
The patent system isn't working particularly well any more, and was never appropriate for software. Something else might be appropriate for software but patents in a recognisable form quite simply arent.