5 ms·

Software Patents are a sham. Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. I wonder what would be if a writer could patent story lines: "It is like a like

by ardit33 19y ago

Software Patents are a sham. Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. I wonder what would be if a writer could patent story lines: "It is like a like a novelist, patenting all action thrillers, that involve a guy saving a girl, who is kidnaped by the bad guys. Watch out, any other books that have a bad guy kidnaping the girl, can be infringing this patent." There are many industries that flourish without the needs of patents. How did we end up in this mess?

deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
nickb 19y ago
Sham or not, they're a reality and we have to deal with it. Just ignoring them is not going to solve anything. >How did we end up in this mess? Politics, money and special interest is a dangerous confluence.
- anaphoric 19y ago
  Actually just ignoring it is probably the best thing to do.
  - pg 19y ago
    That's what we advise startups, at least about software patents. If you've developed something very novel, it doesn't hurt to file a provisional patent application. But don't spend a lot of time on it, or waste any time worrying about other people's patents. That's not what makes startups win or lose.
garbowza 19y ago
"One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html Btw, your writer analogy is a poor one, since prior art exists for that story line and thus it would not be patentable. There are also industries that would collapse without patents (pharmaceuticals for one).
- systems 19y ago
  Because who would pay for RnD if you can't go exclusive at least for a dozen or so years! Well I hope that someone would, that the human social structure have evolved enough to create all what's necessary for it's survival and that the pharmaceuticals industry wouldn't collapse, it would just restructure and medicines will be cheaper! The sad truth is, I really believe this would what would've happened!
  - garbowza 19y ago
    I hope that is what would happen as well. Unfortunately, humans are, as a group, most strongly motivated by money.
  - davidw 19y ago
    "evolving human social structures" is just hand waving. What would the economics of your patent-less pharma world look like? Research dollars are a scarce resource - how will they be allocated and by who?
- bayareaguy 19y ago
  I assume pg is referring to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6117964.html http://www.gamespot.com/news/6117964.html when he writes The one example I've found is, embarrassingly enough, Yahoo, which filed a patent suit against a gaming startup called Xfire in 2005. Xfire doesn't seem to be a very big deal, and it's hard to say why Yahoo felt threatened. Xfire's VP of engineering had worked at Yahoo on similar stuff-- in fact, he was listed as an inventor on the patent Yahoo sued over-- so perhaps there was something personal about it. My guess is that someone at Yahoo goofed. At any rate they didn't pursue the suit very vigorously. I can't help but wonder if pg thinks the same way about software patents now that there is a very real chance that his own patent could be used against him at the whim of someone at a company he's been publically bad-mouthing for some time.
  - pg 19y ago
    What makes you think there's a very real chance of that? Microsoft already has patents on practically everything to do with software. What difference has it made?
pg 19y ago
Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. So physical stuff like valves can be patented, but not software? That seems arbitrary. After all, it's usually the design of the valve that contains the invention. What difference does it make if you print one out? If you mean "nothing should be patented," just say that. One could make a case for that argument. But there's nothing special about software. How did we end up in this mess? What evidence do you have that we're in a mess? Have you ever been prevented from doing something you wanted to because of patents? The fact is, for all the noise people make about them, software patents just don't matter much. Large companies accumulate patent portfolios to protect themselves against patent suits. Startups file for them because investors and acquirers are impressed by them. But they don't decide which startups win.
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 19y ago
    [deleted]
- bayareaguy 19y ago
  Have you ever been prevented from doing something you wanted to because of patents? I've had to take software out of production and replace it with non-infringing software. What evidence do you have that we're in a mess? EOLAS v Microsoft, Amazon v Barnes&Noble, Sun v NetApp..
  - pg 19y ago
    Notice in all three cases the guys on the receiving end of the patent suit were big companies. Big companies have lots of money, so they get sued over patents, and when people slip and fall in the parking lots, and when they fire people. Big companies getting sued over something doesn't mean it's an actual problem. If you don't mind my asking, where were you working when you had to replace this software?
    - 19y ago

by ardit33 19y ago

deleted 19y ago

[deleted]

nickb 19y ago

Sham or not, they're a reality and we have to deal with it. Just ignoring them is not going to solve anything. >How did we end up in this mess? Politics, money and special interest is a dangerous confluence.

anaphoric 19y ago
Actually just ignoring it is probably the best thing to do.
- pg 19y ago
  That's what we advise startups, at least about software patents. If you've developed something very novel, it doesn't hurt to file a provisional patent application. But don't spend a lot of time on it, or waste any time worrying about other people's patents. That's not what makes startups win or lose.

garbowza 19y ago

"One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html Btw, your writer analogy is a poor one, since prior art exists for that story line and thus it would not be patentable. There are also industries that would collapse without patents (pharmaceuticals for one).

systems 19y ago
Because who would pay for RnD if you can't go exclusive at least for a dozen or so years! Well I hope that someone would, that the human social structure have evolved enough to create all what's necessary for it's survival and that the pharmaceuticals industry wouldn't collapse, it would just restructure and medicines will be cheaper! The sad truth is, I really believe this would what would've happened!
- garbowza 19y ago
  I hope that is what would happen as well. Unfortunately, humans are, as a group, most strongly motivated by money.
- davidw 19y ago
  "evolving human social structures" is just hand waving. What would the economics of your patent-less pharma world look like? Research dollars are a scarce resource - how will they be allocated and by who?
bayareaguy 19y ago
I assume pg is referring to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6117964.html http://www.gamespot.com/news/6117964.html when he writes The one example I've found is, embarrassingly enough, Yahoo, which filed a patent suit against a gaming startup called Xfire in 2005. Xfire doesn't seem to be a very big deal, and it's hard to say why Yahoo felt threatened. Xfire's VP of engineering had worked at Yahoo on similar stuff-- in fact, he was listed as an inventor on the patent Yahoo sued over-- so perhaps there was something personal about it. My guess is that someone at Yahoo goofed. At any rate they didn't pursue the suit very vigorously. I can't help but wonder if pg thinks the same way about software patents now that there is a very real chance that his own patent could be used against him at the whim of someone at a company he's been publically bad-mouthing for some time.
- pg 19y ago
  What makes you think there's a very real chance of that? Microsoft already has patents on practically everything to do with software. What difference has it made?

pg 19y ago

Software should be copyrighted, but not patented. So physical stuff like valves can be patented, but not software? That seems arbitrary. After all, it's usually the design of the valve that contains the invention. What difference does it make if you print one out? If you mean "nothing should be patented," just say that. One could make a case for that argument. But there's nothing special about software. How did we end up in this mess? What evidence do you have that we're in a mess? Have you ever been prevented from doing something you wanted to because of patents? The fact is, for all the noise people make about them, software patents just don't matter much. Large companies accumulate patent portfolios to protect themselves against patent suits. Startups file for them because investors and acquirers are impressed by them. But they don't decide which startups win.

deleted 19y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
bayareaguy 19y ago
Have you ever been prevented from doing something you wanted to because of patents? I've had to take software out of production and replace it with non-infringing software. What evidence do you have that we're in a mess? EOLAS v Microsoft, Amazon v Barnes&Noble, Sun v NetApp..
- pg 19y ago
  Notice in all three cases the guys on the receiving end of the patent suit were big companies. Big companies have lots of money, so they get sued over patents, and when people slip and fall in the parking lots, and when they fire people. Big companies getting sued over something doesn't mean it's an actual problem. If you don't mind my asking, where were you working when you had to replace this software?
  - 19y ago