Yes, I'm against protecting abstract ideas with no implementation.
Even when there is an implementation, it's not obvious to me that it should be especially protected by a government (especially a fallible government, which is all of them, as well-meaning as they might be).
I'm definitely not in favor of granting you protection on a "new form of scheduling". A program or calendar or whatever that implements it, sure.
"Patent No. 5,715,314, for example, gives the holder a monopoly over "network-based sales systems" - we call that e-commerce." (yes, Amazon among others is a licensee)
Another well-known case is of course Coca-Cola, which protects its core formula via trade secret rather than relying on the government.
(I am in favor of copyright, and protecting implementations as well - a reduced form of patents).
As I mentioned, if it's not obvious, and the big guy requires resources to copy it, they might be better off purchasing the small guy. If it was easy to copy, well, let's hope the small guy's execution was better than big guy's. (I do realize that big guy has an advantage in marketing, etc.)
> Yes, I'm against protecting abstract ideas with no implementation.
It's curious that you seen to think that patents can protect something other than ideas because ideas are the only things that patents protect.
> Even when there is an implementation, it's not obvious to me that it should be especially protected by a government (especially a fallible government, which is all of them, as well-meaning as they might be).
Then whom will enforce them? Do I hire a private army?
I assume that you feel the same about contracts and copyright (wrt enforcement).
> I'm definitely not in favor of granting you protection on a "new form of scheduling". A program or calendar or whatever that implements it, sure.
So, once someone sees my new form of scheduling, they can use it and there's nothing that I can do about it. (I wasn't thinking calendar scheduling, but it doesn't matter.)
In that world, I'm going to reveal as little as possible.
> If it was easy to copy
Small orgs innovate only when they benefit from doing so. Since the innovations come from small orgs, reducing their ability to benefit is a huge cost. I'm still waiting to see the benefit.
Note that there are bogus patents in chemistry and every other field, yet I don't see near the outrage. Is software special?
No, they don't protect ideas, they protect products or processes. According to WIPO:
"What is a Patent?
A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. In order to be patentable, the invention must fulfill certain conditions "
On your second point, I am in favor of government enforcement of contracts (as a last resort, hopefully), and copyright as well (though it should be amended or limited).
On your scheduling idea, yes, if the implementation is easy, then your only recourse is obscurity (trade secrets).
Scientific theory or discovery and mathematical methods are NOT patentable.
At Business School you learn that all sources of competitive advantage are temporary. BigCo will catch up with you eventually if you don't use your temporary advantage to build up.
> A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. In order to be patentable, the invention must fulfill certain conditions "
You're reading "product" and "process" too literally. A patent on a new way of making a wheel is not just a patent on the wheels that you're making. It's on the way you make wheels, the idea, whether or not you're involved in said wheel making.
> Scientific theory or discovery and mathematical methods are NOT patentable.
Scheduling isn't any of the above, even if it happens to use some of them.
Consider the patent on making vulcanized rubber. It came out of scientific discovery and depends on chemical "laws", but isn't any of those things. It doesn't cover the use of those things to do other things. It just covers the use of those things to vulcanize rubber.
> At Business School you learn that all sources of competitive advantage are temporary.
Patronize much? Anything that applies to "all" isn't specifically relevant to this discussion, which is about specific sources of competitive advantage.
I'll repeat my question - do you really want to leave innovation to BigCos?
Are you against protecting all ideas? If not, what kind of ideas do you think should be protectable and how?
For example, if I invent a new way to do scheduling - is that something that you're willing to let me protect? If so, how?
> I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries do).
What kind of protection are you talking about? Copyright? If so, that's useless against a legit big guy because they don't copy.