As a technology founder who later got an MBA, I've found a divide among the technology and business camps on patents and trademarks.<p>Tech people I know generally agree that patents and copyright stifle innovation. They may once have helped, but no longer.<p>Business people I know believe patents help create entrepreneurship. They think about it from a founder's perspective (they haven't founded companies themselves) and think patents would help that person establish a foothold against incumbents. They ask, "Without patent protection, how can someone get paid for their creation?"<p>As I see it, the business people don't have relevant experience. They're talking about a myth that doesn't exist anymore if it ever did. People who innovate and create have relevant experience and know how patents and copyright are used in practice.<p>At least this judge understands too. I hope his acts catch on.<p>The more relevant question seems "Without patent protection, how can patent lawyers get paid?" because patent lawyers is what the system creates, at the expense of technological innovation, as I see it anyway.
As welcome as this news may be from technical and common sense standpoints, I'm not sure if it's a good thing from a legal one. This whole affair seems to me (and I may be wrong) like one judge deciding that the law is bad, and thus that the suits are meritless. While this seems great as long as you agree with the judge's view, I think it opens a pandora's box.<p>Imagine if a right-wing Christian judge tosses out anti-creationism lawsuits, or pro-RIAA judges toss out anti-RIAA lawsuits. Even worse, imagine a judge indirectly on the RIAA payroll! Granted, these are all a long ways away from this case, but I believe that applauding this judge's actions is the wrong reaction.
Now that this has happened, I am wondering what the direct implications of this are to the industry (especially the 'dismissed with prejudice' part).<p>edit: added the "to the industry" part.
"Posner complained that Apple's attempt to get an injunction restricting the sale of Motorola phones would have "catastrophic effects" on the mobile device market and consumers."<p>- the moral of the story is steal and get the stolen goods into as many 3rd party hands as possible, so that by taking it away from would cause chaos and outrage.
"Don't be evil"? That's criminal and evil at perfection.