5 ms·

> doing away with software patents might also harm any commercial motivation to produce a service with even a hint of transparency into how that service does wh

by jeswin 11y ago

> doing away with software patents might also harm any commercial motivation to produce a service with even a hint of transparency into how that service does what it does Do you have examples of FOSS or other projects benefiting from companies revealing information through patent filing? To rephrase, what exactly do we lose out if patents didn't exist? Even if there is some marginal value in the knowledge sharing that happens in patent filings, not allowing software patents would be a much bigger benefit. To support this point, we can look at the prevalence and utility of Open Source software projects; which work without patent protection.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago
> To rephrase, what exactly do we lose out if patents didn't exist? If you're talking about mundane things like a slider on a phone lock-screen - than obviously nearly nothing. On the otherhand if you are talking about a result of research that might have taken 5-10 years - than patent protection is a big deal and very few private companies would be incentivized to engage in such research without a patent system.
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  Yes, that is, indeed, the point if patents. That's what the OP asked: what 5-10y software research, which we currently benefit from, would not have happened were it not for patents? In medicine, this is extremely easy to answer. Hence why the vast majority of software patents opponents are fine with those.
  - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
    > That's what the OP asked: what 5-10y software research, which we currently benefit from, would not have happened were it not for patents? First of all that is explicitly not what OP asked - he asked: >> To rephrase, what exactly do we lose out if patents didn't exist? > In medicine, this is extremely easy to answer. Hence why the vast majority of software patents opponents are fine with those. Then it seems you've answered your own question? Obviously the patent being in software as opposed to being in medicine doesn't make any distinction -- since there is no logical way to qualify that criteria into a rule that can be unequivocally applied; that the patent system is greatly beneficial in other major areas of research (and supposing you admit the net benefit to be greater than the net harm) makes it inevitable in software - whether you like it or not.
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      > there is no logical way to qualify that criteria into a rule that can be unequivocally applied Software patent: A patent that can be infringed using only computer software and a prior art computer. That clearly, unequivocally does not apply to patents on drugs or the like.
      - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
        This just hard to take seriously. What is: > A patent that can be infringed using only computer software and a prior art computer. When is that the case? When is it not? Are medical devices that run software excluded? Are all kinds (read most) imaginable consumer electronics also excluded (they also have some software)? You are arguing for a policy as if in complete obliviousness that such a policy must be applied in the real world (and said companies will have teams of lawyers to find loopholes, not a random HN poster).
        nothrabannosir 11y ago
        Maybe this can help you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur... It is difficult, as that article points out. But to suggest the non-patentability of software is "just hard to take seriously" is, well, just hard to take seriously, when the largest economy in the world is doing it.
        AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > When is that the case? When is it not? Can you name some specific thing where you think this would be unclear? > Are medical devices that run software excluded? Are all kinds (read most) imaginable consumer electronics also excluded (they also have some software)? Do they consist of only computer software and a prior art computer? It doesn't say the device has to contain no software. If you come up with some new light sensor for a camera which is only useful in combination with a particular algorithm to interpret the output then you would be able to patent the sensor (hardware) but not the algorithm (software). If it's just a new algorithm to interpret data from existing sensors then it's a software patent. I don't see what part of this you find so perplexing. It is a software patent if running software is all that is required to infringe it.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
> To rephrase, what exactly do we lose out if patents didn't exist? There is a lot of empirical evidence showing patents incentivize investment of resources into innovative efforts, such as R&D expenses in large corporations and VC investment in startups. Of course, it's hard to quantify how much innovation this really drives because it's very hard to measure "innovation" itself. The drawbacks of patents include, amongst other things, the potential to reduce follow-on innovation. Again, this is very hard to measure at any meaningful scale. > To support this point, we can look at the prevalence and utility of Open Source software projects; which work without patent protection. Open source projects are driven by people willing to donate their efforts for free. (Well, it's not really free, is it? They are, to a great extent, sponsored directly or indirectly by organizations that typically extract value from something other than the software itself, such as, maybe data.) Do you expect that business model to work for everybody? Not to mention that the vast majority of open source projects actually don't do anything innovative other than just re-implementing known technologies in a different context. There can be a lot of minor, follow-on innovation in open-source projects, but in my experience, the big advances come from other sources, such as academia, startups or corporate R&D labs.
- laotzu 11y ago
  >There is a lot of empirical evidence showing patents incentivize investment of resources into innovative efforts Do you have any sources of this empirical data? In many cases especially with software the opposite is the case now. Legacy patent holders are able to obtain such broadly vague patents and then sit on them and do nothing but try to sue anyone who tries to actually innovate.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    See this comment for a link to start with for patents in general: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962996 To my knowledge, empirical evidence that incumbent patent holders in the software industry are suppressing innovators is mixed. This paper from 2006 claims no ill-effects have been felt: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204 Another 2005 studies also suggests that patent thickets do not prevent the creation of young firms, and the use of patents may actually help startups: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103 On the other hand, this 2006 study finds that product areas with patent thickets see fewer new entrants: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12563 http://www.nber.org/papers/w12563 -- Interestingly, this paper also finds that startups with patents of their own are much more likely to enter a patent-infested product area.

by jeswin 11y ago

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

> To rephrase, what exactly do we lose out if patents didn't exist? If you're talking about mundane things like a slider on a phone lock-screen - than obviously nearly nothing. On the otherhand if you are talking about a result of research that might have taken 5-10 years - than patent protection is a big deal and very few private companies would be incentivized to engage in such research without a patent system.

nothrabannosir 11y ago
Yes, that is, indeed, the point if patents. That's what the OP asked: what 5-10y software research, which we currently benefit from, would not have happened were it not for patents? In medicine, this is extremely easy to answer. Hence why the vast majority of software patents opponents are fine with those.
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  > That's what the OP asked: what 5-10y software research, which we currently benefit from, would not have happened were it not for patents? First of all that is explicitly not what OP asked - he asked: >> To rephrase, what exactly do we lose out if patents didn't exist? > In medicine, this is extremely easy to answer. Hence why the vast majority of software patents opponents are fine with those. Then it seems you've answered your own question? Obviously the patent being in software as opposed to being in medicine doesn't make any distinction -- since there is no logical way to qualify that criteria into a rule that can be unequivocally applied; that the patent system is greatly beneficial in other major areas of research (and supposing you admit the net benefit to be greater than the net harm) makes it inevitable in software - whether you like it or not.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    > there is no logical way to qualify that criteria into a rule that can be unequivocally applied Software patent: A patent that can be infringed using only computer software and a prior art computer. That clearly, unequivocally does not apply to patents on drugs or the like.
    - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
      This just hard to take seriously. What is: > A patent that can be infringed using only computer software and a prior art computer. When is that the case? When is it not? Are medical devices that run software excluded? Are all kinds (read most) imaginable consumer electronics also excluded (they also have some software)? You are arguing for a policy as if in complete obliviousness that such a policy must be applied in the real world (and said companies will have teams of lawyers to find loopholes, not a random HN poster).
      - nothrabannosir 11y ago
        Maybe this can help you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur... It is difficult, as that article points out. But to suggest the non-patentability of software is "just hard to take seriously" is, well, just hard to take seriously, when the largest economy in the world is doing it.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > When is that the case? When is it not? Can you name some specific thing where you think this would be unclear? > Are medical devices that run software excluded? Are all kinds (read most) imaginable consumer electronics also excluded (they also have some software)? Do they consist of only computer software and a prior art computer? It doesn't say the device has to contain no software. If you come up with some new light sensor for a camera which is only useful in combination with a particular algorithm to interpret the output then you would be able to patent the sensor (hardware) but not the algorithm (software). If it's just a new algorithm to interpret data from existing sensors then it's a software patent. I don't see what part of this you find so perplexing. It is a software patent if running software is all that is required to infringe it.

throwawaykf05 11y ago

> To rephrase, what exactly do we lose out if patents didn't exist? There is a lot of empirical evidence showing patents incentivize investment of resources into innovative efforts, such as R&D expenses in large corporations and VC investment in startups. Of course, it's hard to quantify how much innovation this really drives because it's very hard to measure "innovation" itself. The drawbacks of patents include, amongst other things, the potential to reduce follow-on innovation. Again, this is very hard to measure at any meaningful scale. > To support this point, we can look at the prevalence and utility of Open Source software projects; which work without patent protection. Open source projects are driven by people willing to donate their efforts for free. (Well, it's not really free, is it? They are, to a great extent, sponsored directly or indirectly by organizations that typically extract value from something other than the software itself, such as, maybe data.) Do you expect that business model to work for everybody? Not to mention that the vast majority of open source projects actually don't do anything innovative other than just re-implementing known technologies in a different context. There can be a lot of minor, follow-on innovation in open-source projects, but in my experience, the big advances come from other sources, such as academia, startups or corporate R&D labs.

laotzu 11y ago
>There is a lot of empirical evidence showing patents incentivize investment of resources into innovative efforts Do you have any sources of this empirical data? In many cases especially with software the opposite is the case now. Legacy patent holders are able to obtain such broadly vague patents and then sit on them and do nothing but try to sue anyone who tries to actually innovate.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  See this comment for a link to start with for patents in general: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10962996 To my knowledge, empirical evidence that incumbent patent holders in the software industry are suppressing innovators is mixed. This paper from 2006 claims no ill-effects have been felt: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=926204 Another 2005 studies also suggests that patent thickets do not prevent the creation of young firms, and the use of patents may actually help startups: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=510103 On the other hand, this 2006 study finds that product areas with patent thickets see fewer new entrants: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12563 http://www.nber.org/papers/w12563 -- Interestingly, this paper also finds that startups with patents of their own are much more likely to enter a patent-infested product area.