Summary: Insights into intellectual monopolies, courtesy of smaller (but growing) players in the software landscape

Brian Gentile has just made this interesting statement about ways in which laws were made to discriminate against Free/Open Source software.

Take, for example, U.S. patent and copyright protection laws and policies. They reinforce proprietary, “closed source” rights and policies. As a result of this system, many substantial U.S. companies have formed around breakthrough ideas, but incentives are in place for those companies to guard and protect their intellectual property, even if others outside the company could extend or advance it more rapidly.

As we pointed out a few days ago, the European Commission congregated in order to learn how intellectual monopolies harm innovation, but Michael Masnick opines that they may fail to learn a sobering lesson.

Rob H alerts us to an article that starts out sounding reasonable... pointing out that politicians in the EU are meeting because they're worried about intellectual property laws holding back innovation in Europe... but then it goes off the rails. You see, they're not worried that the laws are holding back innovation because they're too strict, but because they're too weak. As you look, though, you realize that these politicians have basically been lobbied by businesses that want protectionist policies.

Watch the latest 'innovation' in action.

If you're a long-time BlackBerry user or "CrackBerry addict," you very likely remember a time just a few years ago when the continued existence of your precious handheld--and its addictive "push" e-mail technology--were in question due to a high-profile lawsuit between Research In Motion (RIM) and patent company NTP.

Similarly, witness what happened to Palm because of patents. It's not innovation, it's castration. ⬆

"Small Software companies cannot afford to go to court or pay damages. Who is this software patent system for?" —Marco Schulze, Nightlabs Gmbh