[jpadvo]

> it does still say something important: that the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation.

Rarely is it the case that anything is truly "total". And if the patent system is squashing 25% of innovation in the software industry, or even 10%, that is a big problem.

Also, it is possible to squash certain kinds of innovators - like startups without tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on patent litigation. While massive corporations can get nailed for a billion or two and hardly notice.

A patent-litigious environment is deadly for startups. And startups are crucial innovators.

[jeffdavis]

reitzensteinm called the chief "intellectually dishonest", and did not properly support that strong claim. That is bad for the discussion. None of the arguments/claims you are making change that fact.

[reitzensteinm]

I said his method of debate was intellectually dishonest. Not the man or his opinion on the matter. For all I know he thoroughly researched the topic and weighed both sides before reaching his conclusions.

But his argument was clearly fallacious. In one sentence, he implies that correlation proves causation, followed by an attempt to frame the debate on his terms by definitively dismissing the claims of the opposition.

These are not tactics used in honest debate. They're being used to discredit the opposition and sway third parties.

I see that as cut and dry. If you don't, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I stand by what I said, and its relevance to this discussion.

[jeffdavis]

You inferred from his words that correlation proves causation. Whether he implied it or not is in dispute.

[chris_wot]

That's really splitting hairs. The man said "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken".

In other words, he says that innovation is occuring at a rapid rate, therefore the patent system isn't broken. Sure, that's not him arguing via correlation, but nonetheless that's a logical fallacy. And that's intellectually dishonest.

[jlgreco]

Exactly. It's like saying "The bus is still hurdling down the road at highway speeds, therefore there is not hobo vomit in the back seat."

[rhizome]

We may not be able to know whether he's being intellectually dishonest until we know what he "really thinks," but he is absolutely using a spotlight fallacy.