[wolfgke]

> If you have a problem with patents, take it up with the legislature and the judicial system, but there's no reason to attack inventors for using a common legal system for protecting their intellectual property.

Many people attack companies that use tax loopholes even though the government does "allow" these loopholes. So if one is opposed to something, but it is formally allowed, one should attack both sides: The people doing it and the government.

[dekhn]

OK it sounds like you just want to have an internet argument to win internet points.

[SiempreViernes]

Don't be grumpy, the "it is technically allowed, therefore morally good"-argument is exceedingly weak, you shoudn't rely on it.

[dekhn]

I didn't make that argument. I made the argument that patents are the least bad approach to the problem, and that as an incentive, it works well.

[MadcapJake]

> but it is formally allowed

Your correlation doesn't hold up because tax loopholes are not formally allowed. You call that out in your previous sentence by scare-quoting "allow". The inventor uses a formal system (patents). The company uses an informal system (tax loopholes). In the case of a formal system, you do not attack the inventor because he is just using the proper channel. In the case of an informal system, you do attack the company because the company is unethically taking advantage of a channel that shouldn't be there in the first place.