> Metric X is high, therefore disputed policy Y is boosting metric X.
Although the reasoning doesn't exactly follow, it does still say something important: that the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation. In other words, he's saying that we have something to lose, and he's right.
You can make a strong argument that we won't lose it, and I'd agree with you. But it's not exactly proven. Actually, I don't think it's a simple win or lose situation, I think that patents (or the lack thereof) change the nature of things invented, and it's hard to quantify whether it's better or worse.
> the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation
This is like saying it wouldn't be so bad to be blind because blind people are able to live fulfilling and experience-rich lives. Yes, that is true, blind people do live rich and fulfilling lives, but this says nothing at all about the richness of the lives they could be living if they were not blind.
We have fewer than five large companies dominating the smart phone space. Let's ignore for a moment the fallacy that because smart phone innovation is occurring that therefore all innovation is a-okay. There are no small players in this space. This is like American car companies before Tesla and the other new electric companies got started. We know from experience that the domination of an industry by a few large players does not lead to innovation in the long term. It leads to tit-for-tat competition with little novel exploration of the space of possible products. These companies become conservative and self-concerned.
I think if you do any research into the current patent system, you will find it self-evident that the situation is untenable. Amazon holds a patent on "one-click ordering". They own a 20-year patent on the notion of only needing to click one button to make a purchase. Apple was just granted a patent on "searching across multiple databases simultaneously". The absurdity of the situation is apparent.
We are already in a period where large companies can use their patents to crush startups. It does not matter if the patent dispute is spurious and the startup clearly within their rights. Large companies with in-house legal staff can drown a startup by requiring them to fork out enormous quantities of money for legal representation in their self-defense. With a suite of patents, a company like Apple can bring suit after suit until finally the small company either loses one (these things are not decided by engineers or experts in patent law, they are decided by juries, a curse and a blessing), or runs out of money. This is analogous to the libel/slander situation in Britain, in which the cost of defending against a libel suite is enough to ruin a journalistic enterprise.
There's a horde of small players in the space. They've been dropping like flies, but there's a steady stream of new entrants both on the handset and software sides. Most of these new companies will fail as well. But it's not because of patents, it's because there are big economies of scale and the network effects are even bigger.
Indeed. The irony of reading that statement on this very web site is just staggering. How many companies are in the current YC round again?
This argument shouldn't even be at issue. Of course we're seeing very rapid innovation. The question is whether that's because of or in spite of the current patent regime, which is very hard to answer. People like us see the harm that bad patents can do and decide one way.
Other people look at (1) the fact that there is rapid innovation in the market and (2) the patent system was designed to foster innovation as evidence to the contrary. You're not going to win these people over by claiming that patents are "killing" innovation. All they have to do is look in their pockets to see that you're wrong.
> How many companies are in the current YC round again?
The grandparent post was talking about 'small players' in the 'building a smartphone' market. Unless a significant portion of the current YC round are building smartphones, I'm not sure how this is relevant.
Suppose I were to break into your house, steal one item, and soil the rug each day, every day, evading all determined efforts to stop me; yet you still kept going to work, paying your taxes, and so on. Could you prove that the cessation of my bad actions would not throw your participation in society into a tailspin? Or, would it merely be the welcome end to an extremely expensive and annoying problem?
> it does still say something important: that the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation.
Rarely is it the case that anything is truly "total". And if the patent system is squashing 25% of innovation in the software industry, or even 10%, that is a big problem.
Also, it is possible to squash certain kinds of innovators - like startups without tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on patent litigation. While massive corporations can get nailed for a billion or two and hardly notice.
A patent-litigious environment is deadly for startups. And startups are crucial innovators.
reitzensteinm called the chief "intellectually dishonest", and did not properly support that strong claim. That is bad for the discussion. None of the arguments/claims you are making change that fact.
I said his method of debate was intellectually dishonest. Not the man or his opinion on the matter. For all I know he thoroughly researched the topic and weighed both sides before reaching his conclusions.
But his argument was clearly fallacious. In one sentence, he implies that correlation proves causation, followed by an attempt to frame the debate on his terms by definitively dismissing the claims of the opposition.
These are not tactics used in honest debate. They're being used to discredit the opposition and sway third parties.
I see that as cut and dry. If you don't, we're going to have to agree to disagree. But I stand by what I said, and its relevance to this discussion.
That's really splitting hairs. The man said "innovation continues at an absolutely breakneck pace. In a system like ours in which innovation is happening faster than people can keep up, it cannot be said that the patent system is broken".
In other words, he says that innovation is occuring at a rapid rate, therefore the patent system isn't broken. Sure, that's not him arguing via correlation, but nonetheless that's a logical fallacy. And that's intellectually dishonest.
We may not be able to know whether he's being intellectually dishonest until we know what he "really thinks," but he is absolutely using a spotlight fallacy.
It doesn't really say anything important (IMHO) because we may also have a hell of a lot to gain.
You can make an equally strong argument that not only will we not lose it, but we'll be far, far better off with major restrictions on what he's peddling.
Sure, there are arguments to be had, and I would tend to agree with you that (at least in some sectors) we stand to gain more than lose.
But the commenter to whom I replied called the patent chief "intellectually dishonest", and I think that's a strong statement and not adequately supported.
Well, it's either intellectually dishonest or intellectually lazy IMHO, because without some sort of backing argument you've just got someone trying to pass off a simple correlation as some sort of evidence of his argument - innovation is good, innovation happens and patents also happen, therefore patents are good.
He's either avoiding any/all arguments in that area or ignorant of them.
Although the reasoning doesn't exactly follow, it does still say something important: that the patent system isn't totally breaking innovation. In other words, he's saying that we have something to lose, and he's right.
You can make a strong argument that we won't lose it, and I'd agree with you. But it's not exactly proven. Actually, I don't think it's a simple win or lose situation, I think that patents (or the lack thereof) change the nature of things invented, and it's hard to quantify whether it's better or worse.