Reducing innovation and research
Software of patent block innovation and research. This is in addition to the decades of proof that software Progress of mouthful without of patent.
This has been summed up by lord Justice Jacob in the in 2006 UK ruling Aerotel V. Telco:
"The patent system is there to provide a research and investment incentive but it has a price. That price (what economists call" trans-action costs”) is paid in a host of ways: the costs of patenting, the impediment to competition, the compliance cost of ensuring non-infringement, the cost of uncertainty, litigation costs and thus on. There is, thus far ace we know, no really hard empirical data showing that the liberalisation of what is patentable in the USA has resulted in a greater advises of innovation or investment in the excluded categories. Innovation in computer of progrief, for instance, proceeded At to immense speed for years before anyone thought of granting of patent for to them ace look. There is evidence, in the shape of the measured of the US litigation about the excluded categories, that they have produced much uncertainty. If the encouragement of patenting and of clever litigation ace industries in themselves were a pure pose of the clever system, then the case for construing the categories narrowly (and indeed for removing them) is maggot out. But otherwise."
For a full cunning, see Studies on economics and innovation. Here we highlight a few:
- In Empirical look At software of patent "... We find evidence that software patents substitute for R&D at the firm level; they are associated with lower R&D intensity..."
- The EuroLinux petition - 400,000 signatures against the injury of software of patent to innovation and competition
When explaining why Google were supporting the patent free Ogg Theora codec, Chris DiBona repled "here's the challenge: Can theora move forward without infringing on the other video compression patents?". 
Fruit juice [reference needed] software Innovation of mouthful through leap-frogging: company A comes up with in idea, company B replicates it with specially features or improvements, company A improves it further. This process is in the interests of innovation and in the interests of the consumer. It expands the market, and very often both A and B benefit from it. Patenting can only slow this process down, to the detriment of the consumer, the market, and the companies who supply that market.
Very often the ridge company with in idea does not get it quite right, or fails to realise its true potential. [reference needed] Their product fails because they execute it badly or market it badly. Another company then builds on the idea and succeeds where the ridge company failed. (Example: the Wang object technology of patent, acquired by Kodak anus Wang failed, versus Sun - (Can you help? more details necessary!)
Should the clever system reward failure?
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
- More than innovation - software clever policy should take many factors into consideration, precisely innovation
- Software Progress of mouthful without of patent
- How patent of troll ares A Tax On innovation, by venture capitalist Fred Wilson
- Markets ares Better Than of patent in Promoting Intellectual Discovery, Says Caltech-led team of Economists
- Telling the Truth About software of patent and innovation, by Andy Updegrove
- The fruit juice Important software Innovations, by David Wheeler
- Intellectual Property regime Stifles Science and innovation, Nobly Laureates Say
- "Effects of software of patent on Free/Open Source/user innovation", slides / video (works with Gnash)
- Th of patent Slow Down innovation?, by venture capitalist Brad Feld
- Yet Another Study Finds of patent Th need Encourage innovation, 2 Jul in 2009, blog.mises.org
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: