> My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades.
That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents, not because of them, because developers largely ignore them and just code whatever they want anyway.
> The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works.
The system doesn't work, that's rather the point; the entire software industry, which you're going on about, largely ignores them, or collects them as weapons of defense against other companies.
> It it didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world.
False, you're claiming we're this innovative because of patents; the burden of proof is upon you to link our success to patents. In the software industry in particular, your claim is just absurd and programmers know it.
> It is, therefore your claim is wrong. The system works.
Incorrect, our lead in innovation does not logically lead to the conclusion that our patent system works well. That you think it does indicates a failure of logic on your part. Innovation happens with or without patents, patents by their very nature slow it down by preventing others from innovating. Patents have never increased innovation, that isn't their purpose; their purpose is to prevent innovation from disappearing into trade secrets and add it to the collective human knowledge. They do this by hampering innovation in favor of the original innovator in exchange for disclosure of the innovation.
> Your claim is: "This has happened DESPITE patents". There is little to no evidence for your claim and the burden of proof is on you.
There's mountains of evidence, it's found in how companies now use patents, as legal weapons to defend themselves from other companies and their hoards of patents. That's not what the system was designed to do. And now patent trolls, the existence of which are quite literal prove the system is broken.
Lets be clear, because someone else's argument fails isn't proof that yours is correct; your arguments have to stand on their own and so far you're not making your own case at all. If you want to defend patents, then defend them, you're not just right because someone else is wrong nor is our lead in innovation proof that patents work. Logic doesn't work that way.
And take note, you're talking to multiple people here.
> False, you're claiming we're this innovative because of patents
I never made that claim.
All I said is that the US is the most innovative country in terms of software.
That's my claim and it's fact.
People who say that the system is broken need to first reconcile their claim with my statement of fact. And they're doing a terrible job at providing proof of their claims besides saying "the system is broken".
> That's not what the system was designed to do. And now patent trolls, the existence of which are quite literal prove the system is broken.
That's absurd exaggeration. The system is not broken, it has flaws. Fix the flaw that enabled patent trolls and the system will get even better than it is today.
> you're not just right because someone else is wrong nor is our lead in innovation proof that patents work. Logic doesn't work that way.
> People who say that the system is broken need to first reconcile their claim with my statement of fact.
No they don't. The system can be broken without conflicting with your statement of fact that we lead in software innovation. You think those things are conflicting, they are not.
> Totally agree. Good thing I did none of that.
It's all you've done, and you just did it again by claiming they need to reconcile with your fact; no they don't, another fallacy the false choice.
There's plenty of evidence if you actually look for it, rather than make up your mind and never seek to challenge your beliefs. Allow me to share:
A paper (Bessen, Maskin - 1999) that argues patents may hinder innovation[1]. Abstract:
"How could such industries as software, semiconductors, and computers have been so innovative despite historically weak patent protection? We argue that if innovation is both sequential and complementary—as it certainly has been in those industries—competition can increase firms’ future profits thus offsetting short-term dissipation of rents. A simple model also shows that in such a dynamic industry, patent protection may reduce overall innovation and social welfare. The natural experiment that occurred when patent protection was extended to software in the 1980's provides a test of this model. Standard arguments would predict that R&D intensity and productivity should have increased among patenting firms.
Consistent with our model, however, these increases did not occur. Other evidence supporting our model includes a distinctive pattern of cross-licensing in these industries and a positive relationship between rates of innovation and firm entry."
Here's another paper on the same topic (Bessen, Hunt - 2004). Abstract:
"U.S. legal changes have made it easier to obtain patents on inventions that use software.
Software patents have grown rapidly and now comprise 15 percent of all patents. They
are acquired primarily by large manufacturing firms in industries known for strategic
patenting; only 5 percent belong to software publishers. The very large increase in
software patent propensity over time is not adequately explained by changes in R&D
investments, employment of computer programmers, or productivity growth. The residual
increase in patent propensity is consistent with a sizeable rise in the cost effectiveness of
software patents during the 1990s. We find evidence that software patents substitute for
R&D at the firm level; they are associated with lower R&D intensity. This result occurs
primarily in industries known for strategic patenting and is difficult to reconcile with the
traditional incentive theory of patents."
An abstract from another paper (Bessen, Meuer, Ford - 2011) showing that lawsuits by non-practicing entities have cost the tech industry $500 billion over a 20 year period (from 1990 to 2010), with almost none of it going to the inventors:
"In the past, non-practicing entities (NPEs) - firms that license patents without producing goods - have facilitated technology markets and increased rents for small inventors. Is this also true for today’s NPEs? Or are they “patent trolls” who opportunistically litigate over software patents with unpredictable boundaries? Using stock market event studies around patent lawsuit filings, we find that NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010, mostly from technology companies. Moreover, very little of this loss represents a transfer to small inventors. Instead, it implies reduced innovation incentives."
And an abstract from yet another paper (Feldman, Lemley - 2015) showing that patent licenses do not drive innovation:
"A commonly offered justification for patent trolls or non-practicing entities (NPEs) is that they serve as a middleman, facilitating innovation and bringing new technology from inventors to those who can implement it. We survey those involved in patent licensing to see how often patent license demands actually led to innovation or technology transfer. We find that very few patent license demands actually lead to new innovation; most simply involve payment for the freedom to keep doing what the licensee was already doing. Surprisingly, this is true not only of NPE licenses but even of licenses from product-producing companies and universities. Our results cast significant doubt on one common justification for patent trolls."
And finally, a paper (Johnson - 2011) that argues, using recent advances in relevant fields, that the fundamental belief that external incentives such as copyrights and patents are necessary for innovation is fundamentally wrong:
"The enterprise of intellectual property law has long been based on the premise that external incentives – such as copyrights and patents – are necessary to get people to produce artistic works and technological innovations. This article argues that this foundational belief is wrong. Using recent advances in behavioral economics, psychology, and business-management studies, along with empirical investigations of industry, it is now possible to construct a compelling case that the incentive theory, as a general matter, is mistaken, and that natural and intrinsic motivations will cause technology and the arts to flourish even in the absence of externally supplied rewards. The result is that intellectual property law itself needs a fundamental rethinking."
In fact, the only real evidence we have that patents may be a net positive is in biotech, and that's due to the extremely time-consuming and massively expensive process of R&D in that field. In every other field, we either have no evidence that patents drive innovation, or we have evidence that they hinder it.
For more direct evidence in the form of specific examples there's an old HN thread from 2010 about this: "Ask HN: Cases where software patents have prevented progress?" [0]
Some examples include arithmetic coding[1], elliptic curve cryptography[2], and LZW/GIF[3]. Apple dropped ZFS because of licencing concerns[4] (dooming us all to listen to John Siracusa complain about HFS+ and lamenting the absence of ZFS for the last 6 years). Many of these have since expired and have had a burst of activity around them afterwards.
> Also, for using a system that's allegedly broken, the US is the country that has been the most innovative in terms of software for decades in a row now.
Yes. That is what he said. He didn't claim a cause, he didn't say that it was broken or that the existing system is the reason that we are ahead.
It is undeniable that the US is successful and innovative. The burden of proof is on the people claiming the system is broken, because the end result does not support that claim. If you want to say that the US is succeeding despite a broken system, you have to prove that the system is broken because the success is already self-evident.
That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents, not because of them, because developers largely ignore them and just code whatever they want anyway.
> The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works.
The system doesn't work, that's rather the point; the entire software industry, which you're going on about, largely ignores them, or collects them as weapons of defense against other companies.