Innovation cost and imitation costs are *not* the same in software. The fact that some software is open does not change this. The threat of litigation *should* stop those like Samsung from copying others as they do. There is no reason the Samsungs of the world cannot come up with their own innovative solutions (and in some areas Samsung does!)
Alex whines about the current system of protection but offers no other way for innovative companies to protect their investments… and such protected innovations benefit the whole tech industry.
With that said, the tech world moves fast. 20 years seems a long time. I think 10 would make sense. And no Disney-style IP protection extensions. Those are just idiotic. But, Alex, speak of solutions – do not just whine about how things are.
The corporate media and Web sites or people who are funded by large corporations have essentially suppressed any debate about issues in the patent granting process, thereby guarding software patents and preventing criticism of large corporations' power grab
The USPTO, much like FISA (notorious court for surveillance/espionage authorisation), has become a rubber-stamping operation rather than a patents examination centre, as new evidence and old evidence serve to show
More of that awkward shifting of the patent debate towards small actors who are misusing patents, not large conglomerates like Apple and Microsoft which use patents to destroy competitors, crush startups, drive up prices, and so on
Windows maintains its reputation as a back doors haven, but the media is still not highlighting the severity of this issue, instead focusing on accidental bugs in Free software, even very old (and already fixed) bugs
Under the traditionally misleading title "Future of Open Source" Black Duck expresses its desire for proprietary software sales, salivating over fearful managers who may get bamboozled into buying the patents-'protected' Black Duck 'product'