On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:42 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
GPLv2 worked in the same way too I think (though not worded as explicitly as it is in v3). In general, I tend to think of sublicensing as being very rare - you only really need it if you're changing the license (or, at least, varying it somehow).
Well, in theory the whole point of IPR is that those things which are not valuable (common knowledge, lacking a creative input (in copyrights) or an inventive step (patents) are in the public domain. Those things which cost money/labour to create/invent are privatized in the hope this incentivises people to invest that labour or money. If you can get the returns of that privatization without making the investment, that's a failure mode of the system, no?
I wouldn't say so, in the same way that not getting any returns by making that same investment also isn't a failure mode of the system either. It's a system of risk.
If there is no investment what are you rewarding ? A monopoly is a serious business, if there is no reason to grant one it shouldn't be granted or you simply create a distortion in the market. And we know how is always easier is for the wealthier to push a bit further.
The patent system should reward risk takers that actually made the investment, because if you don't, in the long term you will get no investments.
If you can get a monopoly whether you invest or not, it is only normal that you will shift toward getting patents where investment is not needed given that no investment == no risk.
So by allowing patents where there is no investment you just end up negating the reason d'etre of the patents themselves: to promote investment.
Simo.