🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <TMB.91May19043527@volterra.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>MIT has been involved in defending a number of patent infringement
>cases. In these cases, even though many people were aware of the
>existence of prior art, establishing this fact legally required
>enormous efforts by people who have better things to do, and
>significant expenses on the part of the defendants. At least in the
>area of software, the costs of the patent system to me clearly seem to
>outweigh its benefits.
>

Two issues here.  The patent system and the conflict resolution system.
The patent system establishes a clear point over which to engage in
conflict, and the conflict resolution system expresses the loss in
monetary terms and decides who pays and who collects.

Our system for resolving conflict in the U.S. is gladiatorial.  Each side
hires a gladiator, and they fight it out.  Gladiators with a stunning
record of victories are expensive, and the side able to afford the
most expensive team of gladiators stands the best chance of winning.

Modern-day gladiators are, of course, attorneys.  Conflicts are usually
decided by ex-gladiators (judges), and the system rulemakers and
administrators (legistrators and appeallate judges) are for the most
part ex-gladiators as well.

Like all analogies, that one is a bit strained; but I think it gives
one reasonable picture of our civil legal system and how it fits into
our society.  Like it or not, that's the system.  Like it or not, the
system is here to stay.
-- 
mitchell@mdi.com (Bill Mitchell)