Comments on: Google Earth may catch a break in patent quake

In initial round of spat over Google Earth, a federal judge seems skeptical of suit against search giant.

[JFDMit]

So that's the way it is.

Seems like every week, some dirtwater bunch of losers creeps out of the woodwork to sue over 'patent infringement.' Never mind that the patent is usually an attempt to claim ownership of fresh air and blue sky. Never mind that the patent holder has proven spectacularly inept at turning their big idea into a business. Never mind that the 'big idea' is one that everyone else and their dog has had before but felt was too obvious and trivial to bother patenting.

No, these jokers come along and waste court time for months and years (at taxpayers' expense), trying to prove that they invented the idea of chewing food or wearing pants.

The result is that the victims of these bottom feeders spend a fortune retaining legal advisors and another fortune in management time fighting off their spurious claims; costs that they inevitably pass onto consumers.

Meanwhile, every company has to divert increasingly large amounts of money to protecting themselves from such claims. This leaves less for genuine innovation.

So we get to pay three times for these clowns; once through taxation; again through increased purchase costs and a final time through stifled innovation.

And the patent system is supposed to be about promoting innovation?

Sure it is.

[t8]

Good post

I totally agree. But the one problem I have is with Microsoft. Imagine what they would do if patents were relaxed. They could easily replicate anyone's technology and bundle it into Windows. Sure they do that anyway with the hope that they can outspend their opponent in the courts, but to encourage them to do it more would be detrimental to the IT industry as a whole.

On the whole though, software patents appear to stifle innovation as you correctly pointed out.

Perhaps a person/organisation should loose a patent if they do not have a viable product based on the patent?

[JFDMit]

So that's the way it is.

Seems like every week, some dirtwater bunch of losers creeps out of the woodwork to sue over 'patent infringement.' Never mind that the patent is usually an attempt to claim ownership of fresh air and blue sky. Never mind that the patent holder has proven spectacularly inept at turning their big idea into a business. Never mind that the 'big idea' is one that everyone else and their dog has had before but felt was too obvious and trivial to bother patenting.

No, these jokers come along and waste court time for months and years (at taxpayers' expense), trying to prove that they invented the idea of chewing food or wearing pants.

The result is that the victims of these bottom feeders spend a fortune retaining legal advisors and another fortune in management time fighting off their spurious claims; costs that they inevitably pass onto consumers.

Meanwhile, every company has to divert increasingly large amounts of money to protecting themselves from such claims. This leaves less for genuine innovation.

So we get to pay three times for these clowns; once through taxation; again through increased purchase costs and a final time through stifled innovation.

And the patent system is supposed to be about promoting innovation?

Sure it is.

[t8]

Good post

I totally agree. But the one problem I have is with Microsoft. Imagine what they would do if patents were relaxed. They could easily replicate anyone's technology and bundle it into Windows. Sure they do that anyway with the hope that they can outspend their opponent in the courts, but to encourage them to do it more would be detrimental to the IT industry as a whole.

On the whole though, software patents appear to stifle innovation as you correctly pointed out.

Perhaps a person/organisation should loose a patent if they do not have a viable product based on the patent?

[nhandler]

Solution proposal

Do away with patents, make companies compete on with their own mettle, not the coercive power of government.

Patents have proven, repeatedly, to be a great example of unintended consequences. The quintessential examples are usually drug and software patents. Without drug patents, companies would have reason to innovate, not concentration on money-making blockbuster remedies to common ailments such as heartburn so as to sit on their R&D haunches while they wage of frontal assault on the advertising world and any would-be generic producers. Software can be protected with encryption and reverse engineering is only successful when the maker is able to outcompete the original creator with its own idea.

Though this is not a long and conclusive discourse, it is my opinion that patents slow discourage innovative entrepreneurship and encourage exploitation.

[nhandler]

Solution proposal

Do away with patents, make companies compete on with their own mettle, not the coercive power of government.

Patents have proven, repeatedly, to be a great example of unintended consequences. The quintessential examples are usually drug and software patents. Without drug patents, companies would have reason to innovate, not concentration on money-making blockbuster remedies to common ailments such as heartburn so as to sit on their R&D haunches while they wage of frontal assault on the advertising world and any would-be generic producers. Software can be protected with encryption and reverse engineering is only successful when the maker is able to outcompete the original creator with its own idea.

Though this is not a long and conclusive discourse, it is my opinion that patents slow discourage innovative entrepreneurship and encourage exploitation.