4 ms·

> Bah, the patent system as a whole is broken anyway. There are very few patents whose absence would have slowed down innovation. On the contrary, the presence

> Bah, the patent system as a whole is broken anyway. There are very few patents whose absence would have slowed down innovation. On the contrary, the presence of patents tend to slow down innovation. There is very little evidence of that. Also, for using a system that's allegedly broken, the US is the country that has been the most innovative in terms of software for decades in a row now.

kelnos 11y ago
Also, for using a system that's allegedly broken, the US is the country that has been the most innovative in terms of software for decades in a row now. I'd say that's despite our patent system, not because of it. I suspect we could be even more innovative -- and indeed, recover some of the edge we've lost in recent years -- by at least killing software and business-method patents... and frankly I wouldn't be opposed to throwing out the entirety of the US patent system. (Which is of course impossible, even if there was US political will to do so, given foreign treaties and obligations in that area.)
- incepted 11y ago
  You're making a tough claim here. You're not just saying that the system can be improved (which is kind of self evident and applicable to pretty much everything) but you're saying that software patents are holding back innovation. How would you go about proving that? I prefer to stick to a more reasonable claim: the system is not broken, it has a few flaws, such as those that enable the existence of non-practicing entities. Fix that flaw and everyone will finally realize that the concept of software patents is sound. We just need to improve its current implementation.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    How would we get rid of non-practicing entities? Forbid patent assignments?
    - incepted 11y ago
      I offered a solution (patents can only be acquired if you acquire the company that owns them). I'm sure there are others.
      - ascorbic 11y ago
        Then companies would just create a new holding company to own each patent that they apply for. All that does is add another layer of bureaucracy.
        incepted 11y ago
        Not a problem as long as they are practicing entities. This is still the spirit of the law.
        ascorbic 11y ago
        The point is that they could then sell those holding companies individually to trolls, so it changes nothing from the current situation. It's just that instead of selling the patent they sell the single-purpose holding company.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > You're making a tough claim here.. You're not just saying that the system can be improved but you're saying that software patents are holding back innovation. How would you go about proving that? That's not a tough claim that needs proven, it's an obvious observable fact to every programmer in the industry. We can't write software without violating tons of patents these days, idiotic patents issued by ignorant people who don't understand the absurdity of the claims being made. Patent trolls, of which we are overflowing with, hold back innovation and they are a direct byproduct of an obviously broken badly designed patent system. > I prefer to stick to a more reasonable claim: the system is not broken, it has a few flaws, such as those that enable the existence of non-practicing entities. It's broken.
  - kelnos 11y ago
    As a sibling replier said, I think it's just obvious observable fact that any software developer can see. Let's look at it from the opposite perspective: ignoring harm completely, I assert that software patents do absolutely nothing to further innovation. There is no algorithm that would not get developed, no software that would not get written, if there was a lack of patent protection. I cannot imagine any person or company choosing not to build something simply because they it could not be patented and therefore could be "stolen". So from that perspective, at the very least software patents are unnecessary and provide no real benefit in terms of providing an incentive to innovate. Maybe that's a "tough claim" as well, but that's just the way I see it from both personal experience and from watching the industry in general, and, frankly, I'd say it'd take some pretty strong evidence to convince me otherwise. So if we -- bear with me on this -- take that as correct, then it becomes pretty brain-dead simple to assert that software patents are a huge net negative on innovation, creating a drain on time, brainpower, and money, to name a few things. I've been on the receiving end of a patent-troll suit, and it was a huge waste of time for me (and my colleagues), as well as a huge waste of money for my company to pay for lawyers to deal with and settle the matter. And for what? Some greedy rent-seeking bastards to line their pockets for doing nothing that benefits anyone but them.
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Let's put your idea to the test. There's allegedly around 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones. Everything from how they look to how they can connect to putting voice over a data line. Try to design a standards-compliant smartphone that runs common apps with understandable interface that doesn't infringe on patents. You will have to read and consult hundreds of thousands of claims regularly as you make every detail. Realistically, you'll just (a) not get into that market at all or (b) ignore the patents then fight with or pay whoever comes after you. Apple vs Samsung is a nice example of where (b) can go but most choose (a).
- incepted 11y ago
  > Let's put your idea to the test. My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades. The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. Otherwise, we would never have had the iPhone, Android nor the BlackBerry. Now try to understand why the system works despite your understanding of it.
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    > My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades. That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents, not because of them, because developers largely ignore them and just code whatever they want anyway. > The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. The system doesn't work, that's rather the point; the entire software industry, which you're going on about, largely ignores them, or collects them as weapons of defense against other companies.
    - incepted 11y ago
      > That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents No. My claim is simply: "The US is the most innovative country in the world in terms of software, and has been for the past decades". This is a fact. Your claim is: "This has happened DESPITE patents". There is little to no evidence for your claim and the burden of proof is on you. > The system doesn't work, that's rather the point It it didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world. It is, therefore your claim is wrong. The system works. Could it work better? Sure. Propose a solution and show some evidence that your solution will be better than the current situation. Then we can talk.
Joeri 11y ago
The US software market is the largest single market for software, single from the perspective of billing, culture, language, regulation and distribution. For a product with very low marginal costs, the bigger the market the better, because you scale up more easily. Software has lower marginal costs than any other product category. It is basically impossible to launch a startup with such a big market anywhere else, except maybe china (and in china you do see that they didn't buy into US software but instead have their own big software players). A similar story exists around licensing creative works. In the EU you must negotiate licenses for every country separately, in the US you negotiate just once for all 50 states. If I had to guess, I'd say the scale of the US software and creative works market is the dominant reason for the observation you made, and patents simply didn't play much of a factor, either to help or to harm.
brlewis 11y ago
>> Bah, the patent system as a whole is broken anyway. There are very few patents whose absence would have slowed down innovation. On the contrary, the presence of patents tend to slow down innovation. >There is very little evidence of that. Given the abundant and widely-publicized examples of specific patents that obviously slow down innovation, I'm beginning to think a downvote is inadequate for comments that claim "little evidence". They should probably be flagged. Amazon's 1-click patent, GIF patent, JEPG2000, the RSA patent come quickly to mind right off the top of my head, and there are numerous more examples that I'm sure a little googling could find quickly. The part about US being most innovative...now that's just the basic scientific error of failing to isolate variables. A downvote suffices for that.

kelnos 11y ago

Also, for using a system that's allegedly broken, the US is the country that has been the most innovative in terms of software for decades in a row now. I'd say that's despite our patent system, not because of it. I suspect we could be even more innovative -- and indeed, recover some of the edge we've lost in recent years -- by at least killing software and business-method patents... and frankly I wouldn't be opposed to throwing out the entirety of the US patent system. (Which is of course impossible, even if there was US political will to do so, given foreign treaties and obligations in that area.)

incepted 11y ago
You're making a tough claim here. You're not just saying that the system can be improved (which is kind of self evident and applicable to pretty much everything) but you're saying that software patents are holding back innovation. How would you go about proving that? I prefer to stick to a more reasonable claim: the system is not broken, it has a few flaws, such as those that enable the existence of non-practicing entities. Fix that flaw and everyone will finally realize that the concept of software patents is sound. We just need to improve its current implementation.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  How would we get rid of non-practicing entities? Forbid patent assignments?
  - incepted 11y ago
    I offered a solution (patents can only be acquired if you acquire the company that owns them). I'm sure there are others.
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      Then companies would just create a new holding company to own each patent that they apply for. All that does is add another layer of bureaucracy.
      - incepted 11y ago
        Not a problem as long as they are practicing entities. This is still the spirit of the law.
        ascorbic 11y ago
        The point is that they could then sell those holding companies individually to trolls, so it changes nothing from the current situation. It's just that instead of selling the patent they sell the single-purpose holding company.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > You're making a tough claim here.. You're not just saying that the system can be improved but you're saying that software patents are holding back innovation. How would you go about proving that? That's not a tough claim that needs proven, it's an obvious observable fact to every programmer in the industry. We can't write software without violating tons of patents these days, idiotic patents issued by ignorant people who don't understand the absurdity of the claims being made. Patent trolls, of which we are overflowing with, hold back innovation and they are a direct byproduct of an obviously broken badly designed patent system. > I prefer to stick to a more reasonable claim: the system is not broken, it has a few flaws, such as those that enable the existence of non-practicing entities. It's broken.
- kelnos 11y ago
  As a sibling replier said, I think it's just obvious observable fact that any software developer can see. Let's look at it from the opposite perspective: ignoring harm completely, I assert that software patents do absolutely nothing to further innovation. There is no algorithm that would not get developed, no software that would not get written, if there was a lack of patent protection. I cannot imagine any person or company choosing not to build something simply because they it could not be patented and therefore could be "stolen". So from that perspective, at the very least software patents are unnecessary and provide no real benefit in terms of providing an incentive to innovate. Maybe that's a "tough claim" as well, but that's just the way I see it from both personal experience and from watching the industry in general, and, frankly, I'd say it'd take some pretty strong evidence to convince me otherwise. So if we -- bear with me on this -- take that as correct, then it becomes pretty brain-dead simple to assert that software patents are a huge net negative on innovation, creating a drain on time, brainpower, and money, to name a few things. I've been on the receiving end of a patent-troll suit, and it was a huge waste of time for me (and my colleagues), as well as a huge waste of money for my company to pay for lawyers to deal with and settle the matter. And for what? Some greedy rent-seeking bastards to line their pockets for doing nothing that benefits anyone but them.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Let's put your idea to the test. There's allegedly around 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones. Everything from how they look to how they can connect to putting voice over a data line. Try to design a standards-compliant smartphone that runs common apps with understandable interface that doesn't infringe on patents. You will have to read and consult hundreds of thousands of claims regularly as you make every detail. Realistically, you'll just (a) not get into that market at all or (b) ignore the patents then fight with or pay whoever comes after you. Apple vs Samsung is a nice example of where (b) can go but most choose (a).

incepted 11y ago
> Let's put your idea to the test. My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades. The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. Otherwise, we would never have had the iPhone, Android nor the BlackBerry. Now try to understand why the system works despite your understanding of it.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  > My idea has already been put to the test and proven correct: the US is the most innovative country in the software area. And has been for decades. That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents, not because of them, because developers largely ignore them and just code whatever they want anyway. > The scenario you are proposing is unrealistic because that's not how the system works. The system doesn't work, that's rather the point; the entire software industry, which you're going on about, largely ignores them, or collects them as weapons of defense against other companies.
  - incepted 11y ago
    > That doesn't prove your idea correct; it's likely the case we're innovative despite patents No. My claim is simply: "The US is the most innovative country in the world in terms of software, and has been for the past decades". This is a fact. Your claim is: "This has happened DESPITE patents". There is little to no evidence for your claim and the burden of proof is on you. > The system doesn't work, that's rather the point It it didn't work, the US would not be the most innovative software country in the world. It is, therefore your claim is wrong. The system works. Could it work better? Sure. Propose a solution and show some evidence that your solution will be better than the current situation. Then we can talk.

Joeri 11y ago

The US software market is the largest single market for software, single from the perspective of billing, culture, language, regulation and distribution. For a product with very low marginal costs, the bigger the market the better, because you scale up more easily. Software has lower marginal costs than any other product category. It is basically impossible to launch a startup with such a big market anywhere else, except maybe china (and in china you do see that they didn't buy into US software but instead have their own big software players). A similar story exists around licensing creative works. In the EU you must negotiate licenses for every country separately, in the US you negotiate just once for all 50 states. If I had to guess, I'd say the scale of the US software and creative works market is the dominant reason for the observation you made, and patents simply didn't play much of a factor, either to help or to harm.

brlewis 11y ago

>> Bah, the patent system as a whole is broken anyway. There are very few patents whose absence would have slowed down innovation. On the contrary, the presence of patents tend to slow down innovation. >There is very little evidence of that. Given the abundant and widely-publicized examples of specific patents that obviously slow down innovation, I'm beginning to think a downvote is inadequate for comments that claim "little evidence". They should probably be flagged. Amazon's 1-click patent, GIF patent, JEPG2000, the RSA patent come quickly to mind right off the top of my head, and there are numerous more examples that I'm sure a little googling could find quickly. The part about US being most innovative...now that's just the basic scientific error of failing to isolate variables. A downvote suffices for that.