[mattiask]

Are they arguing that all languages are free or that the Java language specifically was free? If it's the former it seems a little strange. If I tomorrow invented some programming language that for instance described some novel way to handle concurrency, why wouldn't that be protectable? I'm not pro-patents but languages being public domain per default doesn't seem right either

[obtu]

If you are arguing for monopolies on ideas, that makes you pro-patent.

[mattiask]

Aren't all patents ideas? Surely the difference between a patent or not can't be whether the ideas is a physical object or not.

If all patents were abolished tomorrow I wouldn't mind, but as so long as they aren't it seems silly that some things that really demand a high degree of creativity and innovation isn't protected. That kinda seems to be the point of patents, not like coming up with the idea of buying something with 1-click

[obtu]

Creativity and innovation have been happening for much of human history. Perceived unfairness that the progress of technology doesn't delineate individual's contributions isn't really something that has held back society.

On the other hand, the patent litigation game is negative sum (it destroys wealth) and mostly enriches lawyers: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272 http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/terrible-cost-patents/

In addition to the litigation costs, the prohibition to build incrementally or to reuse or rediscover ideas makes R&D more expensive for lesser results.

So making ideas exclusive has not rewarded R&D and has made society poorer overall, despite rhetoric about incentives, propriety, and fairness.

[mattiask]

I'm not arguing for patents, only that a programming language should probably be patentable if other similar creative efforts are, I don't see why they should be exempt. I agree with you that patents are bad overall (if that's your stance) and should be revamped or abolished.