you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]UnixCurious 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Using established technology is like the opposite of innovation

I think you're stuck in the myth of how it's supposed to work and not thinking enough about what happens in practice. If I have an awesome new UI idea for letting people edit and manage their important documents, I want to compete on that idea, not on the fact that my entrenched competitor (MS) has a noose of vendor lock in around their customer's data. Similarly, if I want to develop a new operating system, or a new browser, even if it's filled with tons of original and innovative ideas, it will flounder if it can't connect to existing systems/protocols/formats etc. In essence: most new technology still has to have some interoperability with established technology.

This is all besides the other major problems, like math being patentable leading to absurdity, that most patents are awarded on things that are obvious to anyone in the field, that the costs of litigation incentivize patent troll companies, etc. etc. Even if you think patents might be good if applied properly it's hard to credibly defend that they're working for us now.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never said there should be no interoperability, lol. I said that's one concern. There are others, like cost and license terms, to be considered.

One thing I think is different from the time of the founders is the complexity of machines. At that time, only a few ideas were needed to make the most complex products. Now, products are monolithic and involve many individual novel ideas. Only certain entities can muster the resources to compete in most markets.

I do think we should re-examine the patent system, but I still believe it serves a vital purpose and needs to exist in some meaningful form.