A big tent
Consider the legal scholar
to the right, or more
precisely, his position paper
on abolishing software patents.
"[For] pharmaceutical and biotech companies, ... patents are clearly necessary to encourage innovation,... [The] exclusion [of "software patents"] from the patent system would [yes,] discourage some software innovations, but the saving from litigation costs over disputed patent rights would more than compensate the economy for that cost. Moreover, some software innovations would be encouraged because the inability to patent software will eliminate uncertainty over whether someone else with a similar patent will sue and do battle [with the copyists]in the courts."
Compensate "THE ECONOMY"?
What about the inventor?
What venture doesn't have uncertainty?
Maybe first we wipe out all the "judges" (and then the lawyers ala Shakespeare)?
Posner's (mis)understanding of what the patent system is about? Click more (below).
In another article (here) about patents, Posner poses:
"The purpose of patent protection is to encourage innovation by giving the creative inventor temporary insulation from competition, to enable him to recover his upfront costs. ... Actually few markets have the characteristics of the pharmaceutical drug market. It seems to be the lone poster child for the patent system. There is a widespread belief among economists, scientists, and business people that the patent system is vastly overextended—patents granted too casually, patent terms too long, patent litigation too expensive and unreliable. "
Is he serious? What business man yearns for mere recovery of upfront costs?