> We at Intellectual Ventures fundamentally disagree with [the notion that patents have a negative impact on innovation], which flies in the face of centuries of evidence.
About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely valuable. The more obvious the idea, the more valuable it is. The artificial scarcity created by the patent system merely shows how valuables simple ideas actually are. Imagine for instance that breathable air becomes scarce. How much would you be willing to pay for it if it meant your life?
And I'm calling out that the article was about software pattents being possibly bad and the response was simply, "no, patents are good" without any real substance.
Some bad things are so obviously good that you don't have to provide substance. Examples: the "protection" of intellectual "property", GDP growth, and even death (which somehow gives meaning to life).
Also, they made a general statement, which we could have dismissed thus: "OK, the patent system is a net good. But _software_ patents are definitely bad [a few decades of overwhelming evidence]". This is generally what we see here an HN.
However, I think we can attack their statements more directly, as "Against Intellectual Monopoly" did. I also think we should do so, instead of just defending our corner of the industry. My current position is, the concept of patent is broken at its core. It simply doesn't work, never did, never will. Hey, I even heard that the first patent systems actually were disguised trade barriers, meant to protect the established, local industry. At that, they did work.
I know of a rather serious source that says patents are a net evil, baked up by… centuries of evidence: http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
About the values of ideas, it is quite evident that most patents' ideas are extremely valuable. The more obvious the idea, the more valuable it is. The artificial scarcity created by the patent system merely shows how valuables simple ideas actually are. Imagine for instance that breathable air becomes scarce. How much would you be willing to pay for it if it meant your life?