|
|
|
|
|
|
by jongraehl
5075 days ago
|
|
|
You don't have to guarantee anything in order to make the consequentialist-rational choice in the face of uncertainty. You just approximately weigh the expected outcomes. You can't seriously argue that the consequences of creating+controlling a software patent (while advocating against software patents) are always net negative. All you have is your "if we all did our part" Kantian argument, which I respect, but decline to follow. |
|
|
I actually don't argue against "all software patents." Truly novel work should be patented. But Software patents should be explicitly enumerated, their definition of "obviousness" refined for the field, and their duration shorted substantially (5 years?).
For example, the software and hardware that went into FingerWork's TouchStream keyboards (which Apple bought, btw) was excellent, novel work. They advanced the state of the art as they produced a product, and they deserved to be rewarded for that risk and innovation.
The problem is not the existence of patents. The problem is the lack of a clear definition for software patents and the abuse this void is suffering.
And I was specifically arguing against the idea that Bill Gates is an existence proof for abusing society for personal gain being justified by potential future good. Not only is that outcome rare, but Bill Gates has been demonized far more than his personal actions deserve.