Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I articulated my reasoning in the following sentence.

You assume that the people in the position to make decisions are competent.

Not at all; there's a large volume of patent litigation, and it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the decision makers are competent to evaluate such elementary arguments. Your argument requires universal incompetence by litigators and/or decision-makers.




"Your argument requires universal incompetence by litigators and/or decision-makers."

Incompetent and or comprimised. Yes.


So basically you think the entire patent system is a giant conspiracy?


No. Cooperation between individual entities is not required. All that is required is that a certain critical mass of the people involved be too incompetant to understand the math, too corrupt to care, or just malicious.

Seeing as we're talking about lawyers and politicians here, I don't think this is all to stunning.


Ah, if you're talking about politicians that's a completely different issue - then you have a good point, because changing the law requires getting a majority of legislators to vote in favor of reform. I'm talking strictly about litigation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: