
First, we kill all the patent lawyers - dreemteem
http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/open-source-business/in-depth/index.cfm?articleid=3299
======
jacquesm
A bit drastic, but it's a start ;)

Seriously, even the author wrote that only as 'bait', but there is a subtle
point to it, which is that at a gut level these people must know that they are
acting against our common best interest by exploiting legal loopholes. As long
as we commend lawyers on exploiting the letter of the law while raping its
spirit there will be no end to this.

In the end it boils down to the fact that words are inadequate vehicles to
express concepts in, we can do all we want, thoughts and concepts are fluid
entities, they can not be expressed in words without losing something. It's
like digitization always is a 'lossy' process.

So by using piles of words ('legalese') we can try to limit the number of gaps
and the size of the gaps between the intention and the description of the
intention, given enough time there will always be new holes found.

It's the basis of biblical interpretation and it is the basis of the enormous
increase in legislation and jurisprudence, and why we need things like a
supreme court.

The patent system is old by technological standards, it has become a liability
and it stifles innovation more than that it promotes it.

If we have to go back to a world without disclosure and of trade secrets then
so be it, I predict that that in the longer term will also be found 'wanting'
as loopholes in those constructs will be discovered, but in the short to mid
term (say another century?) we're better off without them.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
The title is a Shakespeare quote/paraphrase which, amusingly, many lawyers
interpret as being a resounding endorsment of the role of lawyers in society:

<http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html>

------
ck2
The supreme court recently had to have emails vs text messages explained to
them (and then they still didn't get it).

[http://lawyersusaonline.com/dcdicta/2010/04/19/technical-
dif...](http://lawyersusaonline.com/dcdicta/2010/04/19/technical-difficulties-
at-the-supreme-court-2/)

When it comes to technology, we're pretty much not going to get an intelligent
ruling.

~~~
chime
Actually I find it beautiful in a philosophical way. That the Supreme Court of
Justice tries to find the difference between email and text messages by simple
questions is in essence, the direct application of the Socratic method. It
seems odd that a 55 year old person does not know what texting is and how it
works despite a thousand "My BFF Jill" ads. However, if you think justice
should be blind and uninfluenced by external factors, lack of intimate
knowledge or rather attachment to particular fields or experiences is a good
thing.

~~~
jacquesm
I don't know about that. If a justice is to make judgements that make sense
the participants in a society then it would help if they themselves are aware
of the status quo of that society. Otherwise their judgments may be right in
some philosophical sense but will alienate people from the law in a way that
does tremendous damage.

Judgments should not only be 'right' they should make 'sense', and some of the
language in the decisions indicates that not all of them are in touch with the
world as we know it to the extent that they should be.

------
ynniv
The only way to change the state of the patent system is by legislation; the
system operates in the only way it can given the current laws. Judges do their
best to interpret these law. Lawyers execute the will of their clients.
"Inventors" seek to protect their inventions. Patent inspectors attempt the
impossible task of evaluating the uniqueness of claims.

It is possible that the Court will change its opinion on the patentability of
the ideas that concern us, but it is unlikely that they will not just rock but
overturn the software patent boat. Even if we as individuals dislike software
patents, wealthy companies clearly see them as an investment worth protecting.
If you care, you need to speak out, and in a way that says it is in not
your's, but society's best interest for the status quo to change.

------
driekken
I don't think that the patent system is bad by itself. There was a time when
it did bring value to the innovator. It served as a series of rules to
describe a relatively simple system. The negative thing is that it doesn't
scale well. It's in need of a serious overhaul or things will only get worse.

~~~
kiba
So it bring values to the innovators, or maybe a _specific group_ of
innovators.

Does it bring values to the rest of us? What if the concept is wrong in the
first place?

Well, two contarian economists doesn't think the system was that great in the
first place:

 _It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright
and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and
inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music,
literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of
a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and
example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a
practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty._ \-- Michelle
Boldrin and David K. Levine in Against Intellectual Monopoly
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

I think it is a bit presumptious to assume that patents benefit does outweigh
the loss at some point in their history. People needs to dig a little deeper
than that.

