On the other hand, patents allow a company that has made one innovation to sit back and relax for the duration of the patent, rather than going on to do further innovation. In fact, the company may block other companies from innovating in the same field.
Although it seems logical that patents should provide an incentive to innovate, there is no real evidence that it does. The most innovative periods in most countries' history are when they have no patent protection. Although there is considerable theft of ideas, the thieves go on to make improvements that the originators do not.
Is this unjust to the originators of the ideas? Not so much that they were deterred from producing their inventions, it seems.
Load balancing in server operation systems? Where did that come from? I was talking about using peer-to-peer to share the load on small sites. You know, the kind that only have one server - like the one that just got knocked out when this article was posted?
I don't know why I bothered writing that - you're AC and you're obviously trolling.
The index that facilitates the sharing of files on a large scale is also the Achilles heel of peer-to-peer file-sharing
The Achilles heel of illegal peer-to-peer, perhaps, but for those who want to share files legitimately, it's a strength, because it means that there is no need to blanket-ban the technology.
Think about it: the article is already slashdotted, because of the number of hits. What is it that bittorrent does? That's right.
I can't help thinking that there's a flaw in that reasoning. The fact that big business will start pushing money into toolkits doesn't mean that control will be lost. For one, ROI does not apply to big businesses as a group. IBM's investment can't be recouped by Sun, after all, so there's no reason to think that they shouldn't back different horses.
But more importantly, control in an OS/FS project is going to tend to stick with the fork that produces the best code. Doesn't your reasoning mean that you think that big business, with its big bucks to spend, will be churning out more and better code, than OS coders can, and hasn't that long since been shown to be untrue?
Not only that, but if you insist on unification, you destroy most of the features of Open Source / Free Software development that are meant to be its strengths.
If you want to have a single project and still allow developers to add the features that only a few people want, then all you will get is a host of patchsets instead of a host of projects.
Well, actually, what you will get is a lot of people who are dissatisfied.
Having gone through this process, I would personally recommend just going cold turkey. Cutting down slowly is very difficult. Every time you feel tired at work (which is more than you would normally), you'll be tempted to take a hit "just this once".
I tried cutting down by going from drinking many cups of coffee a day to one cup of coffee and as much tea as I liked. I soon found myself drinking tea almost continuously.
Live with the headaches and the irritability. It's not like heroin withdrawal, and it will last a week or so, which is not that long, all things considered.
Once you've kicked it, you will actually feel sharper than you do at present, because you aren't continually dehydrated, and when you do allow yourself a coffee, it will feel *really* nice.
Sure, people have to sell things to make money, but ideas are not inherently saleable, and it is not obvious that they should be.
The only reason why you can make money out of your ideas is because there are patent laws, but only certain kinds of ideas are patentable, mind.
For example, if I am a script-writer, and I invent the Big Brother format of game show, I can't patent it. Why not? What is it that makes this idea less valuable than Microsoft's patent under discussion?
There is no reason to reward people for simply coming up with ideas. Those ideas have to be realized for them to be of use to society, and there is no onus on a patent holder to do that.
Company decided not to support that product any more? Will they license you the patent? Will they heck.
There is research that shows that the patent system encourages innovation and there is research that shows that it does not.
That does not add up to "The patent system most definitely DOES generate innovation".
Slashdot Mirror
On the other hand, patents allow a company that has made one innovation to sit back and relax for the duration of the patent, rather than going on to do further innovation. In fact, the company may block other companies from innovating in the same field.
Although it seems logical that patents should provide an incentive to innovate, there is no real evidence that it does. The most innovative periods in most countries' history are when they have no patent protection. Although there is considerable theft of ideas, the thieves go on to make improvements that the originators do not.
Is this unjust to the originators of the ideas? Not so much that they were deterred from producing their inventions, it seems.
Load balancing in server operation systems? Where did that come from? I was talking about using peer-to-peer to share the load on small sites. You know, the kind that only have one server - like the one that just got knocked out when this article was posted?
I don't know why I bothered writing that - you're AC and you're obviously trolling.
No it doesn't, but I was talking about the technology, not BitTorrent specifically.
If a blanket legal ban on all peer-to-peer goes through, then you are never going to see any kind of distributed load sharing effort, are you?
The Achilles heel of illegal peer-to-peer, perhaps, but for those who want to share files legitimately, it's a strength, because it means that there is no need to blanket-ban the technology.
Think about it: the article is already slashdotted, because of the number of hits. What is it that bittorrent does? That's right.
Good point. It might even turn out as well as Afghanistan has.
I can't help thinking that there's a flaw in that reasoning. The fact that big business will start pushing money into toolkits doesn't mean that control will be lost. For one, ROI does not apply to big businesses as a group. IBM's investment can't be recouped by Sun, after all, so there's no reason to think that they shouldn't back different horses.
But more importantly, control in an OS/FS project is going to tend to stick with the fork that produces the best code. Doesn't your reasoning mean that you think that big business, with its big bucks to spend, will be churning out more and better code, than OS coders can, and hasn't that long since been shown to be untrue?
Not only that, but if you insist on unification, you destroy most of the features of Open Source / Free Software development that are meant to be its strengths.
If you want to have a single project and still allow developers to add the features that only a few people want, then all you will get is a host of patchsets instead of a host of projects.
Well, actually, what you will get is a lot of people who are dissatisfied.
Having gone through this process, I would personally recommend just going cold turkey. Cutting down slowly is very difficult. Every time you feel tired at work (which is more than you would normally), you'll be tempted to take a hit "just this once".
I tried cutting down by going from drinking many cups of coffee a day to one cup of coffee and as much tea as I liked. I soon found myself drinking tea almost continuously.
Live with the headaches and the irritability. It's not like heroin withdrawal, and it will last a week or so, which is not that long, all things considered.
Once you've kicked it, you will actually feel sharper than you do at present, because you aren't continually dehydrated, and when you do allow yourself a coffee, it will feel *really* nice.
Sure, people have to sell things to make money, but ideas are not inherently saleable, and it is not obvious that they should be. The only reason why you can make money out of your ideas is because there are patent laws, but only certain kinds of ideas are patentable, mind. For example, if I am a script-writer, and I invent the Big Brother format of game show, I can't patent it. Why not? What is it that makes this idea less valuable than Microsoft's patent under discussion? There is no reason to reward people for simply coming up with ideas. Those ideas have to be realized for them to be of use to society, and there is no onus on a patent holder to do that. Company decided not to support that product any more? Will they license you the patent? Will they heck.
There is research that shows that the patent system encourages innovation and there is research that shows that it does not. That does not add up to "The patent system most definitely DOES generate innovation".