Did anyone else get bugged by the following: "Patents are vitally important to protecting intellectual property"? Reading along, and WHAM, there it is out of nowhere.
It's not wrong, but it is also not true, since it is a tautology and so devoid of meaning. Patents ARE intellectual property, so the statement is a nonsensical "patents are vital to protect themselves". A circular argument.
I suspect the author is failing to distinguish between ideas and "intellectual property", and is trying to say "Patents are vitally important to protecting ideas". An idea is not intellectual property though. It is born naked and free and has no inherent attributes of property, such as limitations on its use. It is patents that attempt to convert ideas into property, and the onus should be on the patent advocate to demonstrate benefits over unadorned ideas.
It bugs me that so many "software patents are bad" articles go like this:
1. Example of why software patents are bad.
2. Unsupported assertion that patents are essential.
3. Unsupported assertion that pharmaceuticals will not be produced in the absence of patents.
4. Half-baked conclusion that something must change, but it's a scary thing to do because it might kill innovation.
Why not do it this way?
1. Start with the assumption that monopolies are bad for innovation and innovation happens best in a free-wheeling environment.
2. Example of why software patents are bad.
3. Critical examination of whether patents might have any benefit in other areas, such as pharmaceuticals.
4. Unless shown to be generally good in step 3, conclusion that patents are generally bad, with exceptions (possibly none) as identified in step 3.
It's not wrong, but it is also not true, since it is a tautology and so devoid of meaning. Patents ARE intellectual property, so the statement is a nonsensical "patents are vital to protect themselves". A circular argument.
I suspect the author is failing to distinguish between ideas and "intellectual property", and is trying to say "Patents are vitally important to protecting ideas". An idea is not intellectual property though. It is born naked and free and has no inherent attributes of property, such as limitations on its use. It is patents that attempt to convert ideas into property, and the onus should be on the patent advocate to demonstrate benefits over unadorned ideas.
It bugs me that so many "software patents are bad" articles go like this:
1. Example of why software patents are bad.
2. Unsupported assertion that patents are essential.
3. Unsupported assertion that pharmaceuticals will not be produced in the absence of patents.
4. Half-baked conclusion that something must change, but it's a scary thing to do because it might kill innovation.
Why not do it this way?
1. Start with the assumption that monopolies are bad for innovation and innovation happens best in a free-wheeling environment.
2. Example of why software patents are bad.
3. Critical examination of whether patents might have any benefit in other areas, such as pharmaceuticals.
4. Unless shown to be generally good in step 3, conclusion that patents are generally bad, with exceptions (possibly none) as identified in step 3.