[bo1024]

> A title like "Abolish patents, full stop" is, to be blunt, sheer idiocy

Why? Apparently a Nobel laureate in Economics disagrees with you, so maybe we should take the idea seriously.

To see more of Maskin's arguments on software patents, you can read a paper of his on the subject at citation #6 on his wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Maskin

[0wza]

Are you sure that's what he's saying? Is he suggested all patents are impediments?

I just skimmed that paper and I see references to semiconductors and software. The word "pharmaceutical" only appears in the title of a one of the references. He never discusses pharmaceuticals.

Maybe the IT industry has enough cash to make us all forget about other industries that use the patent system such as the pharmaceutical industry. Maybe we can stay focussed on software as a raison d'etre for everything. If patents hurt software, then they must be abolished. Never mind how this might impact other industries.

The only thing I "disagree" with is that the focus is solely on software. Where were these "abolish patents" arguments from Nobel Laureates in Economic years ago, before the smartphone era? Why weren't they arguing against patents that make it more difficult for smaller players to develop drug treatments and make the treatments that are developed by large players more expensive for everyone?^1 Or maybe they were and I just didn't notice.

I'm just not convinced that someone who focuses almost entirely on IT and particularly software truly understands _all_ the dynamics of the patent system. It makes me skeptical. Software is a recent entry into the patent game. The absurd behavior of a few IT companies and patent trolls emerging from IT (the term patent troll itself was coined by an Intel lawyer) is making us question the very notion of patents, for _any_ industry. Am I the only who find this a bit peculiar?

Let's take a step back and look at the big picture. Before these IT clowns got so seriously involved with patents (the increases in the number of patents they've filed for and been granted in a relatively short span of years is, at least to me, quite shocking), how many scholars were proposing bold ideas about "abolishing [all] patents"? There have been serious problems with patents for many years. But maybe they have just never been exploited with such insulting flagrancy until now, thanks to the greater participation of the software industry and one fashionable hardware company in particular.

Maybe the real pressing problem is not patent but IT executives and their child-like ideas about how to conduct business.

1. Years ago, there were people arguing for patent _reform_ (not abolishing an entire system) and warning of the frequency with which bogus software patents were being issued. And even just arguing for reforms, they seemed a bit crazy at the time. Needless to say they did not have "Nobel" attached to their names. My, how things have changed. I wonder what they think now?

[nitrogen]

Maybe the IT industry has enough cash to make us all forget about other industries that use the patent system such as the pharmaceutical industry. Maybe we can stay focussed on software as a raison d'etre for everything. If patents hurt software, then they must be abolished. Never mind how this might impact other industries.

In a "just" world, the ethical thing to do would be to consider the needs of all stakeholders when trying to advance your own. However, we don't live in an idealized just world. Pharmaceutical companies and other patent advocates aren't considering the needs of software companies when they lobby. Assuming that the natural human instinct is to look for a middle-ground compromise (a logical fallacy that seems to be hard wired into our brains), compromising our own arguments by acknowledging theirs, when they will not reciprocate, will not get us where we want to be.

[0wza]

Wow. Your thinking is downright scary.

"compromise [is] a logical fallacy"

If it's hard wired then maybe that's for a reason. And the reason is likely because it keeps you or your progeny alive longer.

Economics can often be inhuman. It's all theory. Contrast that with evolution and "hard wiring". Absence of logic aside, if everyone took your attitude seriously, little would get done and I'm sure economic activity would suffer. Welcome to the world of negotiation. It's how things get done.

This is type of comment represents exactly the kind of childish thinking to which I was refering.

When you are incapable of negotiation, patents and IP in general indeed become a royal PITA.

I'm not sure that lobbying from the pharma industry would have done much good for software companies before the State Street decision. As I said, software companies are newcomers to patents. Other industries have been using patents for far longer.

Even copyright protection for software is a relatively new thing. I'm sure the world's largest patent troll when he was a CTO at a major software company was at times amazed that software could be protected by copyright. It is a gift that spawned an industry and was used to build one of the world's greatest monopolies. What would have happened without that ability to sue for copyright infringement?

[nitrogen]

Wow. Your thinking is downright scary.

"compromise [is] a logical fallacy"

That is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of my intended meaning. Some reading for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#co...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambit_claim

If it's hard wired then maybe that's for a reason. And the reason is likely because it keeps you or your progeny alive longer.

Modern civilization hasn't existed long enough for evolution to catch up. Our hundreds of thousands of years trekking across and out of Africa didn't prepare our feeble minds for the complexities of modern politics.

What would have happened without that ability to sue for copyright infringement?

Most likely? World peace, universal equality, and unlocking the universe's infinite money cheat. Or at least, one less patent troll dragging on innovation.

[0wza]

Hey, I absolutely agree evolution is slow to catch up. But the thing is, we gotta live with what we've got. (Kinda like an election with two lame candidates.) That is the challenge. We're better to work with what evolution has equipped us than to ignore it. We have to be realistic. Dare I say it? We occasionally need to be _reasonable_. (Hello Apple.)

If I understand you correctly this time, you're saying we would have gotten a better deal if Microsoft had not been able sue competitors. Even the Gates Foundation, with all its billions, can't manage to achieve world peace or universal equality.

I read Maskin's paper from 1999. His basic premise was that software didn't need patents to reach a high level of success as an industry. And when the rampant software patenting started, he says it did not boost the industry. But he seems to think that this example of one industry sums up the entire role of the patent system, for any industry. Still not sure I buy that. If he has done his homework on other industries, e.g. pharmaceuticals, he is not showing it in that paper. Maybe I need to read more of his papers.

[nitrogen]

Hey, I absolutely agree evolution is slow to catch up. But the thing is, we gotta live with what we've got. (Kinda like an election with two lame candidates.) That is the challenge. We're better to work with what evolution has equipped us than to ignore it.

That's what I'm saying. Politicians will apply the fallacy of the false compromise, so in order to get what you want, you have to lobby the politicians in opposition to your opponents.

Suppose you could represent the politician's opinion as a number. Your goal is to get the politician to believe in 1.0. Your opponents are arguing for 2.0, so if you argue for 1.0, the politician will go for 1.5. You have to argue for 0.0 in order to get a reasonable compromise at 1.0.

If I understand you correctly this time, you're saying we would have gotten a better deal if Microsoft had not been able sue competitors. Even the Gates Foundation, with all its billions, can't manage to achieve world peace or universal equality.

I was making two points: 1. if Microsoft hadn't made billions, Nathan Myhrvold wouldn't have been able to fund Intellectual Ventures and start a lawsuit campaign via shell companies; 2. (less seriously) if software wasn't covered by copyright, there would still have been a Free Software ecosystem, because there is a sizable subset of the population whose primary driving instinct is the creation and distribution of useful human knowledge.

[bo1024]

> Are you sure that's what he's saying? Is he suggested all patents are impediments?

I'm not sure. It seems to be what he's saying from the letter to the editor, but I don't know if he's said so publicly elsewhere except about software patents.