So you blame a system as being broken when it's the people that do the breaking?
Not quite, although I can see where you got that from. What I am saying is that a system open to blatant corruption is a broken system. We can obviously differ on definitions of "blatant corruption." My opinion, the patent system is open to "blatant corruption" to the extreme. Ergo, the patent system is broken.
Excellent, car analogies. I am not arguing the theory of patents with you, only the implementation. If there were no rules on roads regarding direction of flow, stop signs/lights, speed, etc, people can still drive carefully and avoid accidents. But that is just not a reasonable expectation. Therefore, we need to make rules and enforce them. Otherwise, the system would be broken: open to blatant corruption . . . "because most people drive like assholes." People still break the laws and drive like assholes, but the system doesn't seem broken in this case. At least, not according to my view of "blatant corruption." Boy, I sure like those quotes, don't I?
It's not the patent system that is broken. It's the people who use it that are broken.
Isn't that the basis of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument? If a system exists where people are going to break it, and requires that people will play nice to each other, then I think the system truly IS broken. Because you just can't expect people to naturally play nice, and not game the system.
With regard to your earlier post, eliminating patents would screw over the honest patent appliers. Status quo screws over everyone.
The onus is on you to show that this massive interference in the lives of billions of people is justified. The handwaving and wishful thinking that patent proponents usually engage in is not even remotely sufficient.
100% agree. In a free society (not saying we have one in the US, just in theory), the default should be to protect freedom and prevent monopolies, unless there is some overwhelming reason to otherwise limit this freedom. In the US, and much of the world, we forgot that somewhere along the line.
I refuse to use software that's been tested on animals.
Yet, you use software that has been, and is currently being tested on human beings all the time. Oh, the humanity!
You can never know for sure, unless you've went through all the patents.
Unfortunately, even then, that means nothing. Just because someone reviewed each and every patent in existence and doesn't think there is patent infringement, doesn't mean someone else will review the same information and disagree. So the question is really of high risk versus low risk for patent infringement, rather than yes or no. To me, it seem like h264 is guaranteed patent infringement, while VP8 is low risk, given that the distribution license has a patent clause.
That right here is the problem with America. More than anything. The complete lack of critical thinking skills, desire for rational debate and the equivalence of truthyness and truth.
Yes, but in all fairness, that wasn't on the final exam . . .
They're kids on the inside
That's not right. I don't mean to preach, but if they're pregnant, they should not be climbing such obstacles.
"Been through Hell? Whaddya bring back for me?" -- A. Brilliant