[stanleydrew]

Progress is slow when it comes to patent reform. Judges have a lot of control over how fast it happens, since they're really the only ones who can make binding decisions.

Of course it would be great if the patent office had made better decisions in the first place, but that ship sailed long ago.

[x5n1]

... and the legislature can reform all of this over night, but big money and big business won't let it. they like the safety of patents even if they are not going to war with them. same mentally as guns i guess.

[cheepin]

For most of the people I know that aren't in tech, patent reform isn't remotely on their radar. Congress isn't going to go against the money for an issue that doesn't have overwhelming popular support. Is there even a consensus on what would fix the problem? Banning software patents just covers one edge case, but there are plenty more issues in patent law.

Patents in all fields clearly slow down innovation by allowing the holder to slow down or stop derivative works. The common counter to removing patents altogether is big pharmacy. I don't know how much sympathy I can have for big pharmaceuticals either with how much they get away with: even with unpatented drugs we see anti-competitive behavior with companies like Turing. Clearly the innovation is profitable enough that funding it publicly and then reaping the benefit publicly shouldn't be a problem, right?

The other objection is that it promotes secrets over open innovation, but I'm not sure that is too valid either. The current status quo gags profitable utilization of research for 20 years. Surely there's an acceptable alternative.

[throwawaykf05]

>Patents in all fields clearly slow down innovation by allowing the holder to slow down or stop derivative works.

This theory is not supported by empirical evidence. There is plenty of evidence showing how industries became more innovative with the introduction of patent protection. This theory may however apply to industries where innovation is incremental and where claim boundaries are hard to define, like software, but evidence is hard to come by and only now are we seeing some empirical studies on the matter.

[cgriswald]

> same mentally as guns i guess.

Is it really the same? I struggled over this a bit and I think I agree that the mentality is the same, but disagree on the nature of that mentality.

Moneyed interests want patents because it is easy for moneyed interests to acquire patents and more difficult for others. Such interests do not need to go to war. They only need speak softly and show their patents. Their hegemony is not threatened, even if they must fight amongst themselves.

Likewise, guns. Make it impossible for people to acquire guns and those with the guns remain in control. There is no need to go to war when those who would disagree with you are under your control because they cannot defend themselves.

[Floegipoky]

*Systemic corruption won't let it

Let's call it what it is