> leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year
Insane to me that they use this as a measure of innovation, when almost by definition it is the antithesis of innovation.
Insane to me that they use this as a measure of innovation, when almost by definition it is the antithesis of innovation.
so that's the viewpoint in which patents may be "the antithesis to innovation". i won't argue which one's correct, just providing it here since you requested.
Software arguably is not suited for a patent system, but patents have worked well for centuries.
This is exactly the claim I'm taking issue with. The OP implied that the legal definition of innovation was "patents filed" and implied that this is somehow meaningful, and I'm saying that the absence of patents is not evidence of a lack of innovation.
It takes less resources to remedy a failed over bridge. You’d have to have a basket of measurement like how we measure CPI - current approach is lazy.
The house takes just as long to build, but it's sturdier, longer lasting, better insulated, etc?
I am not saying it’s easy, but economics is full of complex measurements, financial derivatives, and god knows what. Maybe they should spend some effort measuring the real world.