The SHIELD Act does not strike me as the most effective way to attack this problem.
Presumably there are legitimate innovators who will not be as quick at execution as incumbent competitors. They may leverage themselves highly in order to try to scale up production, and afterwards will have scarce resources to hire legal representation.
Depending how open and shut the case looks, representation may take them on as clients anyway. This act would marginally decrease the likelihood that they would, whether it decreases it too little or too much is a legitimate concern.
Other industries than software are far more capital intensive. For instance most new drugs are not developed at the same companies that are the best at synthesizing compounds at scale and have the best distribution networks. However, investors assume the risk of funding expensive research, specifically because they know that in the rare case that it is successful, the large companies will buy the property rather than simply make it themselves.
The SHIELD Act could very well create a different model where all drug research had to take place under the umbrella of larger corporations that could fund expensive legal fights on short notice.
There is an overwhelming presumption that intellectual property is a sham in the software industry. Perhaps, software patents (and patents of business practices) generally slow progress more than they reward innovation. However, I don't understand how skepticism about the role of intellectual property protections has turned into uncritical acceptance that it only causes harm.
> However, I don't understand how skepticism about the role of intellectual property protections has turned into uncritical acceptance that it only causes harm.
Is not uncritical acceptance, there has been plenty of research and evidence that shows intellectual property harms innovation:
Presumably there are legitimate innovators who will not be as quick at execution as incumbent competitors. They may leverage themselves highly in order to try to scale up production, and afterwards will have scarce resources to hire legal representation.
Depending how open and shut the case looks, representation may take them on as clients anyway. This act would marginally decrease the likelihood that they would, whether it decreases it too little or too much is a legitimate concern.
Other industries than software are far more capital intensive. For instance most new drugs are not developed at the same companies that are the best at synthesizing compounds at scale and have the best distribution networks. However, investors assume the risk of funding expensive research, specifically because they know that in the rare case that it is successful, the large companies will buy the property rather than simply make it themselves.
The SHIELD Act could very well create a different model where all drug research had to take place under the umbrella of larger corporations that could fund expensive legal fights on short notice.
There is an overwhelming presumption that intellectual property is a sham in the software industry. Perhaps, software patents (and patents of business practices) generally slow progress more than they reward innovation. However, I don't understand how skepticism about the role of intellectual property protections has turned into uncritical acceptance that it only causes harm.