> It certainly seems to me this would work for software, probably even better than it does for fashion. Arguably it already does.
Yes, it would work better for software! I'm unsure why you and my other interlocutor considered this an interesting point to make: my post is clear that I believe software patents should be abolished, but not all patents.
> Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any evidence that it actually works that way?
Yes. The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim.
> I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product where they get a lot of protection that works;
Sure you do. Segway is one. Many of the products by Dyson would be others.
> I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on.
Please, by all means, provide examples.
> The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place
Isn't Segway protected by its uselessness rather than a patent?
Edit: if you believe that Segway's lack of success meant nothing, and that many companies want to build and sell self-balancing scooters but the patent system is stopping them, you should argue that point and downvote, not just downvote. I'm annoyed.
DEKA is a strange duck. They have some genuinely brilliant people there, working on some genuinely revolutionary inventions -- but they just can't seem to actually bring them to market. Or, they're not interested in bringing them to market.
I've never seen one of their wheelchairs; I've seen some Segways, but they remain more a curiosity and spectacle than a common device; I've yet to hear of the Stirling engine / water purifier being deployed anywhere; and their cybernetics for amputees don't seem to be getting beyond experimental.
I really don't "get" them. The best I can figure is that everyone (influential) there is happy just to be working on these puzzles, and they don't really care if anyone uses them or not.
Honestly, I think you deserved your downvotes. The segway is clearly not useless; the market has shown that. Just because something isn't a runaway success doesn't mean it wasn't a success.
> The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim.
The logic of that is not right.
The presence of both patents and innovations does not prove that innovation depends on patents. It only proves the sort-of negative: if both patents and innovation exists, then patents do not imply the absence of innovation -- i.e. patents do not completely destroy innovation.
Various other things help innovation happen. And I expect more detailed evidence shows them to be the important factors -- that is the gist of Boldrin and Levine's work, so that is probably a good source to pursue on the matter.
Yes, it would work better for software! I'm unsure why you and my other interlocutor considered this an interesting point to make: my post is clear that I believe software patents should be abolished, but not all patents.
> Yes, this is the standard argument. Do you have any evidence that it actually works that way?
Yes. The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim.
> I don't see a lot of small companies making it big on a patented product where they get a lot of protection that works;
Sure you do. Segway is one. Many of the products by Dyson would be others.
> I do see a lot of companies of all sizes being stomped on.
Please, by all means, provide examples.
> The effects in reality do not seem to be a net positive for the "little guys", who can't afford the patent process in the first place
Tell that to James Dyson or Dean Kamen.