5 ms·

.. bad idea even now. Patent lawsuits' original use was to prevent theft of original ideas, which is a good thing. But suing for billions for common things like

by jitix 11y ago

.. bad idea even now. Patent lawsuits' original use was to prevent theft of original ideas, which is a good thing. But suing for billions for common things like pinch-and-zoom and rounded icons is simply taking things too far. This stifles innovation.

chrisbennet 11y ago
I think people forget that its purpose was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". In the case of today's software, it is actually doing the opposite; it's a drag on innovation. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." -Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution
sokoloff 11y ago
I'd argue that multi-touch and pinch-to-zoom combined represents an innovation. Now, whether that should protected for 17-20 years is a completely different matter. I'd be happiest with a world without software patents, but 12-18 months from filing might be a reasonable compromise position for software/electronics patents. That is short enough that you might simply take the filings, assign each a number (do no review), immediately publish the claims, and then after the fact adjudicate any complaints that someone raises. (lazy evaluation for patents, basically) IMO, that's enough incentive to get us the iPhone, multi-touch, Bluetooth / LE, NFC, etc, etc, without every startup being worried about a company-killing judgement hanging over their head.
- jitix 11y ago
  I agree. Software and electronics innovation moves at a faster pace and because of the long validity of patents we have the patent trolls. However for things like medicines, etc the turnaround cycle is longer so its ok to have longer validity. Maybe the stakeholders should start a discussion about bifurcation of patent laws based on the field, because the one-size-fits all clearly isn't working.
jsight 11y ago
Yep... this video is informative in terms of the minutiae of some of these patents (and the alternatives): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgJiu3gr_LU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgJiu3gr_LU That these patents exist in and of itself is not necessarily bothersome. That someone can argue that stretchy scroll is worth billions is.

by jitix 11y ago

chrisbennet 11y ago

I think people forget that its purpose was to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". In the case of today's software, it is actually doing the opposite; it's a drag on innovation. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." -Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution

sokoloff 11y ago

I'd argue that multi-touch and pinch-to-zoom combined represents an innovation. Now, whether that should protected for 17-20 years is a completely different matter. I'd be happiest with a world without software patents, but 12-18 months from filing might be a reasonable compromise position for software/electronics patents. That is short enough that you might simply take the filings, assign each a number (do no review), immediately publish the claims, and then after the fact adjudicate any complaints that someone raises. (lazy evaluation for patents, basically) IMO, that's enough incentive to get us the iPhone, multi-touch, Bluetooth / LE, NFC, etc, etc, without every startup being worried about a company-killing judgement hanging over their head.

jitix 11y ago
I agree. Software and electronics innovation moves at a faster pace and because of the long validity of patents we have the patent trolls. However for things like medicines, etc the turnaround cycle is longer so its ok to have longer validity. Maybe the stakeholders should start a discussion about bifurcation of patent laws based on the field, because the one-size-fits all clearly isn't working.

jsight 11y ago

Yep... this video is informative in terms of the minutiae of some of these patents (and the alternatives): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgJiu3gr_LU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgJiu3gr_LU That these patents exist in and of itself is not necessarily bothersome. That someone can argue that stretchy scroll is worth billions is.