[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

In many Jurisdictions patents apply for a short term - usually four years - and have to be regularly renewed. There is little chance of a valuable patent being allowed lapse while within its renewal window.

This is called a maintenance fee, which is different from the duration of the patent. The patent is in effect for 20 years. The US charges maintenance fees 3 times (3.5, 7.5 and 11.5 years). If a fee is not paid within six months of the renewal window, you can still renew the patent up to two years later. That's pretty generous for something that's being monetized.

Canada, fees are assessed every year starting on the second anniversary.

I actually would prefer we moved to the Canadian system. If you're not currently using it, or have plans to use it, then it should go the community.

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

You also ignore the fact that interest in a writer's works and its genre go through phases of renewed popularity.

Irrelevant to my argument. Technology goes through phases of popularity as well. Look at using CO2 as a refrigerant, as an example.

Originally Posted by DarkScribe

BTW, what am I supposed to "witness" about the software industry? It seems fine to me. As increasingly bloated and as inept as it ever was.

Have you not been paying attention to Microsoft's actions over the past 30 years? Or the emergence of patent trolls?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

There's a lot of proprietary stuff in software that actually works very well, and in some cases better than an open format.

I am a proponent of open source stuff, and I use Linux whenever I can. However, proprietary software is usually better. There's no question that Microsoft Office is waaaaay more functional LibreOffice, not to mention it has saner defaults and is just generally prettier. CAD is something that just doesn't exist in a usable format in Linux. I like Linux, but it's really only a play-thing for geeks.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

In some respects, Android has its advantages; e.g. Amazon and B&N can use it, without licensing fees, for their ebook devices.

BN was paying Microsoft for the right to use Android before their recent partnership. Many other players are paying Microsoft as well.

Not the best article, just the first I found.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

But we've had a lot of proprietary software for decades, and it doesn't seem to have strangled innovation.

Originally Posted by The Atlantic

That's basically the only conclusion you can draw from a new study by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer of Boston University which looks at the costs of patent litigation instigated by "non-practicing entities" (NPEs), the polite term for patent trolls. NPEs own patents, but don't actually use them to make goods or services that people would, you know, want. Rather, they use the patents to prevent other companies from creating goods or services that people might want. Lovely, really. The cost of this vital industry? $29 billion in 2011 alone, and that's just the direct legal costs, not even counting "various indirect costs ... such as diversion of resources, delays in new products, and loss of market share." The loss for the economy overall -- in terms of immeasurable opportunities -- is surely far greater.



http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...t-year/259070/

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I'd also say that the relative unimportance of content is exactly what makes it feasible to have longer copyright durations than patents.

A valid viewpoint. But then why do patents on things like Sham Wow not enjoy longer terms than drugs, or plant patents?

We segregate based on type, not based on importance.

EDIT: I forgot to add that according to that BU Study, 82 percent of defendants had less than $100 million in annual revenue, and the median company had only $10.8 million in annual revenue.

That's a definite drain on the competitiveness, and therefor growth, of small companies.