Re: Chapter on Open Source in Friedman's _The World is Flat_

Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Who's to say the physical-bits innovator doesn't also see physical-bits 
> patents as a limiter on their ability to innovate and work?  Is it just 
> that historically the physical-bits innovators have come to terms with 
> the balance of interests, whereas computer science had a good thirty 
> years of relatively patent-free innovation to get (too?) used to the idea?

If patent policy is really economic public policy as is claimed, then 
there should be economic studies which back up the policy.  The main 
patent reform I have called for is to adequately test first principles 
(that granting the monopoly is an incentive for rather than a chill 
against innovation) for each subject matter classification independently.

For the "physical bits" folks I believe that current evidence would 
suggest that the monopoly is still justified, even if peer production 
(open access/etc) techniques for R&D are diminishing the public benefits 
of any monopoly.


For pure intangibles (information/processes) I don't believe the 
economic justifications for patent monopolies ever existed.  I also 
don't believe it is feasible to have high-quality information/mental 
process patents, and suspect that a statutory requirement to have at 
least 95% good quality patents in each subject matter where patents are 
granted would be sufficient to eradicate software and business model 
patents.

-- 
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/blog/2 (My BLOG)
  Sign the Petition Users' Rights! http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/
  To protect Internet age creativity we must reform WIPO, not copyright!