4 ms·

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 everythin

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.

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.