12 ms·

> 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 obviousl

> 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.

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.