Difference between revisions of "Talk:Why abolish software patents"
(:Yup, sounds worth adding. ~~~~) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Yup, sounds worth adding. [[User:Ciaran|Ciaran]] 08:40, 5 August 2009 (EDT) | :Yup, sounds worth adding. [[User:Ciaran|Ciaran]] 08:40, 5 August 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Burden of proof== | ||
| + | I see my addition to the list has been edited. The excision of the majority of the harsh but entirely fair¹ and accurate contextual latter half of the first sentence rather guts it IMO. Okay - it's your list - but “historical status quo” is poor English. Similarly, the “properly” in the second sentence has been replaced with “morally”, reducing the strength of what was the moral *and* material anti-fallacy² core of the argument by half (at least). The added “For example...” question is almost a good _counterexample_ of the kind of question that the argument preceding it suggests should be asked. It positively invites an anecdote fight! | ||
| + | |||
| + | * ¹ Generously so given what the Pat. Est. has been getting up to since before the CII Directive. | ||
| + | * ² Shifting the burden of proof has been a (if not the) major achievement of the pro-swpatters. | ||
Revision as of 07:42, 7 August 2009
Patent thickets
What about the fact that nobody will be able to develop software, if they got a patent to "protect" their idea, at all because of the thousands of patents owned by large companies (such as IBM or Microsoft) which used in that software if they tried to deny them?--94.98.37.115 04:43, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
- Yup, sounds worth adding. Ciaran 08:40, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
Burden of proof
I see my addition to the list has been edited. The excision of the majority of the harsh but entirely fair¹ and accurate contextual latter half of the first sentence rather guts it IMO. Okay - it's your list - but “historical status quo” is poor English. Similarly, the “properly” in the second sentence has been replaced with “morally”, reducing the strength of what was the moral *and* material anti-fallacy² core of the argument by half (at least). The added “For example...” question is almost a good _counterexample_ of the kind of question that the argument preceding it suggests should be asked. It positively invites an anecdote fight!
- ¹ Generously so given what the Pat. Est. has been getting up to since before the CII Directive.
- ² Shifting the burden of proof has been a (if not the) major achievement of the pro-swpatters.
