4 ms·

I'd argue that, rather than banning software patents outright, the process by which these patents are approved should be put under high scrutiny and changed. Fo

by cloudkj 17y ago

I'd argue that, rather than banning software patents outright, the process by which these patents are approved should be put under high scrutiny and changed. For a lot of large companies, the approach really is similar to throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks. Having gone through the process recently, I'm amazed at how easy it is for an engineer to conceive an idea, pitch it to a few paralegals and lawyers, and get it written up to submit to the USPTO. IMHO, there's a big disconnect between the engineering minds that actually come up with legitimate patentable ideas and the IP attorneys that write and file the patents. Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. You need a mechanism in place to protect the property rights of individuals and corporations. When there's absolutely no sense of preservation of property - whether it be tangible or intangible - innovation and risk taking are going to suffer.

steveklabnik 17y ago
> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.
- voidpointer 17y ago
  The software companies themselves often argue that they don' really want software patents. However, the fact that other can file patents puts them into a position where they need to file patents themselves for protection. It's just a stupid arms race. Now and then, a patent troll with noting to lose shows up and shakes up the picture. You could call it a sort of IP terrorism :-)
  - seldo 17y ago
    I think using the phrase "IP terrorist" rather than "patent troll" would make it much easier to sell to congress why these patents are a bad idea.
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      But you _know_ "IP Terrorist" will be associated with filesharers, and not trolls.
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    IIRC i4i is not a patent troll. It's a company with real products, users and - and that prevents it from being called a patent troll - probably licenses the patents from others. I am all in for banning obvious or bad patents, as well as shortening their duration, but, perhaps, the i4i patents may be really original or innovative. Microsoft is known for talking partnership, maybe acquisition, learning all they can and then launching a competitor that kills their "partner". Having strategic patents is the only way a small company can defend from this. Also, I like the way their name sounds. Sounds appropriate.
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      I mean, they're not a troll in the way that they're developing their product, but they're a troll in the way that their patent is for a way of editing custom XML. Really?
      - rbanffy 17y ago
        They have declared OpenOffice.org does not infringe. The patent then must be something pretty narrow.
        steveklabnik 17y ago
        Here's the patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5787449.PN.&OS=PN/5787449&RS=PN/5787449 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... It's not really.
- cloudkj 17y ago
  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for openness and transparency. But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection, and that it's a pretty fundamental pillar of our capitalist system. Out of curiosity, what do you (and others) think of a patent for something like Google's PageRank?
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    I think it's bad, because the patent wouldn't read "Google's PageRank". It would read "A system that ranks cataloged pages by their relevance to a certain search term", which would mean every other search engine would have to license Google's tech. Copyright already covers specific implementations. That's as far as it needs to go in software.
    - kelnos 17y ago
      Well, not really. They'd only have to license it from Google if they implemented their search engine in a manner covered by Google's hypothetical patent. Of course, apparently Google feels they have more to gain by keeping their algorithm secret than by patenting it.
      - cookiecaper 17y ago
        Well, look at some software patents. The kind of scope and specificity in "a system that ranks cataloged pages..." is about par for the course. Look at the patent that caused the injunction against Word ( http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ ); it's rather vague and basically includes anything that uses or modifies XML to create a product for end-user consumption. The enforcement depends on the judge and the parties to the suit, but it's got a really, really broad potential scope. It's not unique; most software patents are that way. You think that's a good thing?
  - dantheman 17y ago
- gphil 17y ago
  I'm not so sure that patents on software are any more or less "silly" than patents on real (physical) devices. What is it about software patents that makes them inherently different from patents in general? Obviously, there are arguments for and against the patent system as a whole, but are there any that apply only to software patents? I know there's a rich tradition of objecting to patents on software, but it always strikes me as odd that people think that software is some kind of exception, and that other patents are OK.
  - brlewis 17y ago
    You (and PG in one of his essays) think this way because you're looking at the end product. But patents aren't about the end product, they're about the human process that leads to that product and its incentives. People come up with algorithms and other mathematical constructs without the need for special government incentives.
    - gphil 17y ago
      It may be true that people come up with algorithms and mathematical constructs without patents as an incentive, but I still don't see how the same incentives (patents) are necessary for people to build novel material goods if they are not necessary for people to build novel software goods. What I'm left wondering is, what is it specifically (for people who hold that some patents are OK, while software patents are not) that makes software different? Edit: I just saw dstorrs comment, and I think what he seems to be implying is that patents on software are not comparable to other industries because of the relatively lower barrier to entry, and the relatively higher cost of enforcement. I think that this is a good argument for holding software patents to different standards (i.e. shorter statute lengths and more specificity in the application) than pharmaceuticals, etc. but I still don't see how patents are entirely misguided in the case of software.
      - cookiecaper 17y ago
        Software is different because it's considered a creative work and therefore falls under the veil of copyright. Copyrights protect each implementation individually, and this is ample protection. Patents generally cover a whole _invention_, not an implementation, and each implementation requires a license from the patent holder. So, in the case of the web browser, had Mosaic or Netscape patented this concept every competitor would be forced to obtain a license from the patent holder and open-source or free browsers would be impossible. Patents in the case of software therefore have a chilling effect and prevent significant competition for a long time. Pharmaceuticals only get patented by publicly divulging their significant modes of operation; a software patent outlines only vague processes, like the i4i patent that's brought this whole thing up. Software is also merely a high-level implementation of an algorithm. Algorithms are non-patentable and all math is discovered, not invented; this has been settled earlier, and is the reason that algorithms alone are not awarded patent protection. Software is no different. In software, the implementation details are significant enough that patent protection is not only undesirable but in fact crippling to the industry as a whole. Take a look at some software patents; in fact, take a look at i4i's patent specifically. It's applicable to basically that edits XML documents, whether it be a word processor, an IDE, or anything else. These things are way too vague and they encroach on prior and future art in a hugely negative way. See http://w2.eff.org/patent http://w2.eff.org/patent for a list of some rather absurd software patents granted by the USPTO; even if we ignored everything else and assumed that software patents were OK for things that deserved them, the people in charge of patents don't have anywhere near the kind of knowledge necessary to make intelligent decisions. Those are my reasons for opposing software patents. It makes development a complete minefield, and only the big guys can afford to wade through that. I just have to hope that I don't do anything too successful until the patent laws are revoked or until I make enough money not to care.
- sid0 17y ago
  > Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. Do you have any evidence for this? I know very intelligent people (both software developers and CS researchers) who think that software patents are not only necessary, but moral.
maxwell 17y ago
> You need a mechanism in place to protect the property rights of individuals and corporations. Trademarks. Copyrights.
philwelch 17y ago
Software is (uniquely?) protected two ways--the source code and object code are both protected by copyright, and the algorithms may be protected by patent. One form of protection should be sufficient. Arguably, software is also protected by trade secret, either because it's difficult to decompile object code into anything meaningful or because it's hosted and run on a server that no one else is allowed to see.
- BerislavLopac 17y ago
  And the idea of patenting an algorithm is ridiculous. Algorithms are mathematical formulae, i.e. a representation of natural laws. Making them patentable is as pointless as patenting e=mc^2, or Planck constant. For the same reason gene patents are pointless and outright dangerous.
  - billybob 17y ago
    Algorithms are not mathematical formulae. Those are inherent in the universe. Code is nearly as arbitrary as a novel. It expresses an idea in specific terms. There are lots of ways to write the same program, and lots of possible programs to write. There is only one correct way to write e=mc^2.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    1. Algorithms are a representation of logic, not natural laws--something like quicksort is just a priori math, sensible regardless of what your natural laws are. 2. It's merely an application or representation of natural laws to design a steam engine or something too.
- rlpb 17y ago
  > it's difficult to decompile object code This is getting easier and easier with languages like Ruby and Python becoming more mainstream.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    But of course, most Ruby and Python applications are safely hidden away on a server you control. Relatively few "closed-source" Ruby and Python applications are distributed directly to the user.
cma 17y ago
Why not just fund general research like we already do, but more so?
kiba 17y ago
This is based on your assumption that a patent system will actually result in more inventions, than it would otherwise without its existence. It is also based on the assumption that novel inventions necessary mean it should be protected in the market place because of its presumed usefulness. It also mean that you believe an invention can be judged objectivity to be obvious or not. You also forget the enormous difficulty for reforming the patent system to the economic benefits of the masses due to regulatory capture by special interest. If you want to reform the system, you have to reform the overlying political system that allow such regulatory capture in the first place. Secondary, I would like to direct your attention to a book called Against Intellectual Monopoly by two economists, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, who explains the evidence for why patent and copyright monopolies shouldn't exists in the first place.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by cloudkj 17y ago

steveklabnik 17y ago

> Getting rid of software patents altogether is quite extreme. Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. It's kind of silly, frankly.

voidpointer 17y ago
The software companies themselves often argue that they don' really want software patents. However, the fact that other can file patents puts them into a position where they need to file patents themselves for protection. It's just a stupid arms race. Now and then, a patent troll with noting to lose shows up and shakes up the picture. You could call it a sort of IP terrorism :-)
- seldo 17y ago
  I think using the phrase "IP terrorist" rather than "patent troll" would make it much easier to sell to congress why these patents are a bad idea.
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    But you _know_ "IP Terrorist" will be associated with filesharers, and not trolls.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  IIRC i4i is not a patent troll. It's a company with real products, users and - and that prevents it from being called a patent troll - probably licenses the patents from others. I am all in for banning obvious or bad patents, as well as shortening their duration, but, perhaps, the i4i patents may be really original or innovative. Microsoft is known for talking partnership, maybe acquisition, learning all they can and then launching a competitor that kills their "partner". Having strategic patents is the only way a small company can defend from this. Also, I like the way their name sounds. Sounds appropriate.
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    I mean, they're not a troll in the way that they're developing their product, but they're a troll in the way that their patent is for a way of editing custom XML. Really?
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      They have declared OpenOffice.org does not infringe. The patent then must be something pretty narrow.
      - steveklabnik 17y ago
        Here's the patent in question: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5787449.PN.&OS=PN/5787449&RS=PN/5787449 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec... It's not really.
cloudkj 17y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for openness and transparency. But I do believe there needs to be some level of legal rights protection, and that it's a pretty fundamental pillar of our capitalist system. Out of curiosity, what do you (and others) think of a patent for something like Google's PageRank?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  I think it's bad, because the patent wouldn't read "Google's PageRank". It would read "A system that ranks cataloged pages by their relevance to a certain search term", which would mean every other search engine would have to license Google's tech. Copyright already covers specific implementations. That's as far as it needs to go in software.
  - kelnos 17y ago
    Well, not really. They'd only have to license it from Google if they implemented their search engine in a manner covered by Google's hypothetical patent. Of course, apparently Google feels they have more to gain by keeping their algorithm secret than by patenting it.
    - cookiecaper 17y ago
      Well, look at some software patents. The kind of scope and specificity in "a system that ranks cataloged pages..." is about par for the course. Look at the patent that caused the injunction against Word ( http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=y8UkAAAAEBAJ ); it's rather vague and basically includes anything that uses or modifies XML to create a product for end-user consumption. The enforcement depends on the judge and the parties to the suit, but it's got a really, really broad potential scope. It's not unique; most software patents are that way. You think that's a good thing?
- dantheman 17y ago
gphil 17y ago
I'm not so sure that patents on software are any more or less "silly" than patents on real (physical) devices. What is it about software patents that makes them inherently different from patents in general? Obviously, there are arguments for and against the patent system as a whole, but are there any that apply only to software patents? I know there's a rich tradition of objecting to patents on software, but it always strikes me as odd that people think that software is some kind of exception, and that other patents are OK.
- brlewis 17y ago
  You (and PG in one of his essays) think this way because you're looking at the end product. But patents aren't about the end product, they're about the human process that leads to that product and its incentives. People come up with algorithms and other mathematical constructs without the need for special government incentives.
  - gphil 17y ago
    It may be true that people come up with algorithms and mathematical constructs without patents as an incentive, but I still don't see how the same incentives (patents) are necessary for people to build novel material goods if they are not necessary for people to build novel software goods. What I'm left wondering is, what is it specifically (for people who hold that some patents are OK, while software patents are not) that makes software different? Edit: I just saw dstorrs comment, and I think what he seems to be implying is that patents on software are not comparable to other industries because of the relatively lower barrier to entry, and the relatively higher cost of enforcement. I think that this is a good argument for holding software patents to different standards (i.e. shorter statute lengths and more specificity in the application) than pharmaceuticals, etc. but I still don't see how patents are entirely misguided in the case of software.
    - cookiecaper 17y ago
      Software is different because it's considered a creative work and therefore falls under the veil of copyright. Copyrights protect each implementation individually, and this is ample protection. Patents generally cover a whole _invention_, not an implementation, and each implementation requires a license from the patent holder. So, in the case of the web browser, had Mosaic or Netscape patented this concept every competitor would be forced to obtain a license from the patent holder and open-source or free browsers would be impossible. Patents in the case of software therefore have a chilling effect and prevent significant competition for a long time. Pharmaceuticals only get patented by publicly divulging their significant modes of operation; a software patent outlines only vague processes, like the i4i patent that's brought this whole thing up. Software is also merely a high-level implementation of an algorithm. Algorithms are non-patentable and all math is discovered, not invented; this has been settled earlier, and is the reason that algorithms alone are not awarded patent protection. Software is no different. In software, the implementation details are significant enough that patent protection is not only undesirable but in fact crippling to the industry as a whole. Take a look at some software patents; in fact, take a look at i4i's patent specifically. It's applicable to basically that edits XML documents, whether it be a word processor, an IDE, or anything else. These things are way too vague and they encroach on prior and future art in a hugely negative way. See http://w2.eff.org/patent http://w2.eff.org/patent for a list of some rather absurd software patents granted by the USPTO; even if we ignored everything else and assumed that software patents were OK for things that deserved them, the people in charge of patents don't have anywhere near the kind of knowledge necessary to make intelligent decisions. Those are my reasons for opposing software patents. It makes development a complete minefield, and only the big guys can afford to wade through that. I just have to hope that I don't do anything too successful until the patent laws are revoked or until I make enough money not to care.
sid0 17y ago
> Really? I'd think that most people in software have the opinion that there should be no software patents at all. Do you have any evidence for this? I know very intelligent people (both software developers and CS researchers) who think that software patents are not only necessary, but moral.

maxwell 17y ago

> You need a mechanism in place to protect the property rights of individuals and corporations. Trademarks. Copyrights.

philwelch 17y ago

Software is (uniquely?) protected two ways--the source code and object code are both protected by copyright, and the algorithms may be protected by patent. One form of protection should be sufficient. Arguably, software is also protected by trade secret, either because it's difficult to decompile object code into anything meaningful or because it's hosted and run on a server that no one else is allowed to see.

BerislavLopac 17y ago
And the idea of patenting an algorithm is ridiculous. Algorithms are mathematical formulae, i.e. a representation of natural laws. Making them patentable is as pointless as patenting e=mc^2, or Planck constant. For the same reason gene patents are pointless and outright dangerous.
- billybob 17y ago
  Algorithms are not mathematical formulae. Those are inherent in the universe. Code is nearly as arbitrary as a novel. It expresses an idea in specific terms. There are lots of ways to write the same program, and lots of possible programs to write. There is only one correct way to write e=mc^2.
- philwelch 17y ago
  1. Algorithms are a representation of logic, not natural laws--something like quicksort is just a priori math, sensible regardless of what your natural laws are. 2. It's merely an application or representation of natural laws to design a steam engine or something too.
rlpb 17y ago
> it's difficult to decompile object code This is getting easier and easier with languages like Ruby and Python becoming more mainstream.
- jrockway 17y ago
  But of course, most Ruby and Python applications are safely hidden away on a server you control. Relatively few "closed-source" Ruby and Python applications are distributed directly to the user.

cma 17y ago

Why not just fund general research like we already do, but more so?

kiba 17y ago

This is based on your assumption that a patent system will actually result in more inventions, than it would otherwise without its existence. It is also based on the assumption that novel inventions necessary mean it should be protected in the market place because of its presumed usefulness. It also mean that you believe an invention can be judged objectivity to be obvious or not. You also forget the enormous difficulty for reforming the patent system to the economic benefits of the masses due to regulatory capture by special interest. If you want to reform the system, you have to reform the overlying political system that allow such regulatory capture in the first place. Secondary, I would like to direct your attention to a book called Against Intellectual Monopoly by two economists, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, who explains the evidence for why patent and copyright monopolies shouldn't exists in the first place.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]