5 ms·

At the same time legitimate software patents can help to protect small software studios and startups. It is a double edged sword.

josefresco 17y ago
I'd say it's still a one-sided sword. The side that crushes real innovation (and brings on crap suits like this) is sharp as hell, the one the 'protects' small startups is pretty blunt.
- NathanKP 17y ago
  I have to agree. I'm just saying that there is the potential for it to help as well as harm.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    The potential is less important than the actual effects though.
Vivtek 17y ago
They're far more often used as bludgeons to drain the defense coffers of small software studios and startups. By the time a patent is granted, that startup has moved on to something better - show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. Not the patented mechanism (that's generally obvious and we all know it), just what the invention is supposed to solve. Software patents are an abuse of the patent system.
- wheels 17y ago
  > show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. MP3.
  - pyre 17y ago
    IIRC, MPEG Layer-III isn't a single patent. So it's a bit of a misnomer to say that 'MP3' is a patent that a competent programmer couldn't come up with on their own. On the other hand, I've heard some audio people say that MP3 wasn't necessarily anything 'new' to audio engineers/producers. It was just translating into software what people in the business already knew.
    - wheels 17y ago
      It certainly was new to audio engineers and producers. It wasn't wholly new to researchers in the field of psycho-acoustic compression, but then, there's rarely much that is new for the inner circle of researchers in a field.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    I think that competent programmers with relevant training could develop good compression techniques for things like audio and video. In fact, that happens somewhat often.
- krakensden 17y ago
  RSA. But you're still correct.
  - brlewis 17y ago
    Here's my hypothesis: The less obvious a software "invention" is, the more closely it resembles patenting pure mathematics. Unfortunately, a severe shortage of non-obvious software patents makes this hypothesis difficult to test.
    - krakensden 17y ago
      of course, patenting mathematics isn't allowed :)
      - gnaritas 17y ago
        Nor should patents on programs be, since they're all just math anyway; mostly sloppy not well thought out math, but math none the less.
- SapphireSun 17y ago
  Isn't the point not that other people can implement it, but that they didn't come up with it? Not that there isn't serious abuse of the system, but it's supposed to protect innovation, and ease of implementation can be innovation.
  - Vivtek 17y ago
    No. This is a common misconception. The patent system is there to give a temporary monopoly on an implementation in return for allowing it to be public domain later - and disclosing the knowledge now, not later, so that additional innovation can proceed. The only problem is that the term of the monopoly is selected to support mechanical engineering growth rates of the 19th century, and we're stupidly trying to apply it to entire industries that rise and disappear more quickly than that. Read some patents from other fields - they typically protect and disclose stuff that really took some work to figure out. That's the point. One-click ordering, though? That's just plain bullshit. Anybody could implement that.
breck 17y ago
> "legitimate software patents" I think the issue here is a lot of people don't think there is such a thing.
- wglb 17y ago
  There are a few that think they are useful: http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html
flatline 17y ago
Protection results in a racket as its ultimate end. I see small studios and startups doing just fine right now without patents, which are expensive and require a lot of specialized knowledge to apply for. Who is being protected from what by patents, exactly?
- krakensden 17y ago
  This. The only people who can afford and want to lawyer up with patents are exactly the people who shouldn't have them. There are some rare exceptions, but continuing to punish the majority for their sake seems silly.
- kelnos 17y ago
  I suppose it depends on how you define "expensive," but they really aren't. I believe the application fee is on the order of a few thousand dollars (in the US only, of course; you can easily rack up a hefty fee if you need to apply in multiple jurisdictions). Doing the actual application and enumerating the claims isn't trivial, but I do know laypeople who have successfully applied for and been granted patents with minimal help from a lawyer (that's where patent applications can get expensive). EDIT: It's even less than I thought from the USPTO side; see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm#patapp http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september1...
wglb 17y ago
One author at http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp feels that the break-even point for patents is $12 to $14 million.
- kelnos 17y ago
  That's a little misleading. The article claims that the break-even point is $12-40mn in gross sales. That's a bit of a weird way to put it that doesn't really illuminate the actual cost of patenting something at all. Regardless, suggesting that it costs $12mn to patent something is ludicrous.
kiba 17y ago
It is presumptuous to think that megacorporation have the foresight to predicts the "next big things" and react accordingly and fast enough. They might not even want to because it will cannibalize their existing business. There's a reason why small startup can run circles around bigger corporations all the time and it's not legal weaponry.

josefresco 17y ago

I'd say it's still a one-sided sword. The side that crushes real innovation (and brings on crap suits like this) is sharp as hell, the one the 'protects' small startups is pretty blunt.

NathanKP 17y ago
I have to agree. I'm just saying that there is the potential for it to help as well as harm.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  The potential is less important than the actual effects though.

Vivtek 17y ago

They're far more often used as bludgeons to drain the defense coffers of small software studios and startups. By the time a patent is granted, that startup has moved on to something better - show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. Not the patented mechanism (that's generally obvious and we all know it), just what the invention is supposed to solve. Software patents are an abuse of the patent system.

wheels 17y ago
> show me a single software patent that a competent programmer couldn't develop in a few weeks given the description. MP3.
- pyre 17y ago
  IIRC, MPEG Layer-III isn't a single patent. So it's a bit of a misnomer to say that 'MP3' is a patent that a competent programmer couldn't come up with on their own. On the other hand, I've heard some audio people say that MP3 wasn't necessarily anything 'new' to audio engineers/producers. It was just translating into software what people in the business already knew.
  - wheels 17y ago
    It certainly was new to audio engineers and producers. It wasn't wholly new to researchers in the field of psycho-acoustic compression, but then, there's rarely much that is new for the inner circle of researchers in a field.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  I think that competent programmers with relevant training could develop good compression techniques for things like audio and video. In fact, that happens somewhat often.
krakensden 17y ago
RSA. But you're still correct.
- brlewis 17y ago
  Here's my hypothesis: The less obvious a software "invention" is, the more closely it resembles patenting pure mathematics. Unfortunately, a severe shortage of non-obvious software patents makes this hypothesis difficult to test.
  - krakensden 17y ago
    of course, patenting mathematics isn't allowed :)
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      Nor should patents on programs be, since they're all just math anyway; mostly sloppy not well thought out math, but math none the less.
SapphireSun 17y ago
Isn't the point not that other people can implement it, but that they didn't come up with it? Not that there isn't serious abuse of the system, but it's supposed to protect innovation, and ease of implementation can be innovation.
- Vivtek 17y ago
  No. This is a common misconception. The patent system is there to give a temporary monopoly on an implementation in return for allowing it to be public domain later - and disclosing the knowledge now, not later, so that additional innovation can proceed. The only problem is that the term of the monopoly is selected to support mechanical engineering growth rates of the 19th century, and we're stupidly trying to apply it to entire industries that rise and disappear more quickly than that. Read some patents from other fields - they typically protect and disclose stuff that really took some work to figure out. That's the point. One-click ordering, though? That's just plain bullshit. Anybody could implement that.

breck 17y ago

> "legitimate software patents" I think the issue here is a lot of people don't think there is such a thing.

wglb 17y ago
There are a few that think they are useful: http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html

flatline 17y ago

Protection results in a racket as its ultimate end. I see small studios and startups doing just fine right now without patents, which are expensive and require a lot of specialized knowledge to apply for. Who is being protected from what by patents, exactly?

krakensden 17y ago
This. The only people who can afford and want to lawyer up with patents are exactly the people who shouldn't have them. There are some rare exceptions, but continuing to punish the majority for their sake seems silly.
kelnos 17y ago
I suppose it depends on how you define "expensive," but they really aren't. I believe the application fee is on the order of a few thousand dollars (in the US only, of course; you can easily rack up a hefty fee if you need to apply in multiple jurisdictions). Doing the actual application and enumerating the claims isn't trivial, but I do know laypeople who have successfully applied for and been granted patents with minimal help from a lawyer (that's where patent applications can get expensive). EDIT: It's even less than I thought from the USPTO side; see http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september15.htm#patapp http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2009september1...

wglb 17y ago

One author at http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp feels that the break-even point for patents is $12 to $14 million.

kelnos 17y ago
That's a little misleading. The article claims that the break-even point is $12-40mn in gross sales. That's a bit of a weird way to put it that doesn't really illuminate the actual cost of patenting something at all. Regardless, suggesting that it costs $12mn to patent something is ludicrous.

kiba 17y ago

It is presumptuous to think that megacorporation have the foresight to predicts the "next big things" and react accordingly and fast enough. They might not even want to because it will cannibalize their existing business. There's a reason why small startup can run circles around bigger corporations all the time and it's not legal weaponry.