5 ms·

Software patents are the problem not the answer

52 points by pmjordan 17y ago

dan_the_welder 17y ago
It has been said that what the current patents issue creates is a landscape where you can only be the one winner or among the many losers. If there was a different solution, then there could be many small players filling different niches. This would be a win since there would be many opportunities to create a business and contribute to the economy. Look at ISPs, if all you have is Comcast then you have a parallel to the current patents winner take all situation with all the problems that creates. I really think the larger issue is that if people can't create businesses that fill out the economic landscape then those people are not able to work to their potential and that is a huge unintended drag on growth.
muerdeme 17y ago
Minor quibble: patent prosecution is the process of getting a patent from the PTO. Patent enforcement is suing a startup for infringement.
fnid2 17y ago
I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which previously required an entire factory of employees perhaps, and right now, I could patent that. Without software patents I couldn't. However, if I invent a big machine, that does the same thing my software did, and I build it with gears and levers and conveyor belts, I could patent that. No one argues that I shouldn't be allowed to patent a physical device or the design for a physical device. But people argue that I shouldn't be allowed to patent a software device that does exactly the same thing as the hardware device. Why the bias toward the physical? Why don't abstract inventions carry the same worthiness of intellectual protection that physical devices afford?
- hga 17y ago
  "For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent." NO! Outside of the lower end of the embedded realm, computer systems are fantastically more complicated than anything physical we've every tried to construct, and they contain so many ideas that could be subject to patent in the current regime that you analogy fails.
  - fnid2 17y ago
    So this adds even more to the argument that software should retain its patentability. If it's even more complex than the old stuff we thought was so complex it deserved special protection. > NO! It's hard to believe, but it is true. Imagine simply replacing tiny transistors on a chip with big relays and physical switches that flop back and forth. Yes, it would take a long time and be a very big device, but it's a mathematically proven fact.
    - hga 17y ago
      No, the point here is that no one can build a software system of any complexity without infringing on many patents. Tracking that and even paying RAND fees without the need for negotiation makes this impossible, not just difficult or impractical. And it kills open source software, which doesn't have a model to pay license fees. Plus there are so many not formally documented ideas that the Patent Office regularly issues patents covering well known prior art; surely you've heard of this? E.g. the XOR patent? With any luck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski will drive a stake into the heart of this madness.
      - fnid2 17y ago
        The legal system, unfortunately, is where patents are disputed. If there is prior art, the patent will be thrown out.
        hga 17y ago
es3754 17y ago
Agreed. Software patents hinder innovation. Large companies can afford to create and license patents; startups launch products/web services and hope not to trip any of those "landmines" when they become successful.
char 17y ago
I couldn't agree more. Patents are a complete waste of time. It is ridiculous to me that people can actually patent an idea, as if they are the only ones in the world who thought of it. (You're never the only one in the world who thought of your idea, even if you think you are.) A patent is not going to prevent someone else from executing the same idea in a better way. Meanwhile, all it does is slow down innovation and drain money and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.
- mattiss 17y ago
  You do realize that without patents large companies have FAR less incentive to buyout novel startups right?
kiba 17y ago
"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty." - Boldrin and Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... I highly recommend that everyone should read this book, if only to elevate the average level of sophistication in HN debates about intellectual property.
chrisbennet 17y ago
I think people lose sight of just what patents are for; they are to encourage innovation. From the US Consitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" Software patents as currently practiced do not serve this purpose. Imagine if you were a writer and the words you commonly used for you craft were "owned" by others? This is the situation now for software developers.
yason 17y ago
Can anyone think of or refer to any single case where a software patent had actually and demonstrably advanced the field? Just for reference, this is not entirely rhetorical; I would like to know about such, too.

52 points by pmjordan 17y ago

It has been said that what the current patents issue creates is a landscape where you can only be the one winner or among the many losers. If there was a different solution, then there could be many small players filling different niches. This would be a win since there would be many opportunities to create a business and contribute to the economy. Look at ISPs, if all you have is Comcast then you have a parallel to the current patents winner take all situation with all the problems that creates. I really think the larger issue is that if people can't create businesses that fill out the economic landscape then those people are not able to work to their potential and that is a huge unintended drag on growth.

muerdeme 17y ago

Minor quibble: patent prosecution is the process of getting a patent from the PTO. Patent enforcement is suing a startup for infringement.

fnid2 17y ago

I don't know. I don't think it's black and white. I suppose my concern with software patents is this, why are software engineers in another category of intellectual from mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and civil engineers? For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent. I could write revolutionary software that enables the push of a button to do a lot of work, which previously required an entire factory of employees perhaps, and right now, I could patent that. Without software patents I couldn't. However, if I invent a big machine, that does the same thing my software did, and I build it with gears and levers and conveyor belts, I could patent that. No one argues that I shouldn't be allowed to patent a physical device or the design for a physical device. But people argue that I shouldn't be allowed to patent a software device that does exactly the same thing as the hardware device. Why the bias toward the physical? Why don't abstract inventions carry the same worthiness of intellectual protection that physical devices afford?

hga 17y ago
"For example, almost every computer system can be represented by a physical equivalent." NO! Outside of the lower end of the embedded realm, computer systems are fantastically more complicated than anything physical we've every tried to construct, and they contain so many ideas that could be subject to patent in the current regime that you analogy fails.
- fnid2 17y ago
  So this adds even more to the argument that software should retain its patentability. If it's even more complex than the old stuff we thought was so complex it deserved special protection. > NO! It's hard to believe, but it is true. Imagine simply replacing tiny transistors on a chip with big relays and physical switches that flop back and forth. Yes, it would take a long time and be a very big device, but it's a mathematically proven fact.
  - hga 17y ago
    No, the point here is that no one can build a software system of any complexity without infringing on many patents. Tracking that and even paying RAND fees without the need for negotiation makes this impossible, not just difficult or impractical. And it kills open source software, which doesn't have a model to pay license fees. Plus there are so many not formally documented ideas that the Patent Office regularly issues patents covering well known prior art; surely you've heard of this? E.g. the XOR patent? With any luck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Bilski will drive a stake into the heart of this madness.
    - fnid2 17y ago
      The legal system, unfortunately, is where patents are disputed. If there is prior art, the patent will be thrown out.
      - hga 17y ago

es3754 17y ago

Agreed. Software patents hinder innovation. Large companies can afford to create and license patents; startups launch products/web services and hope not to trip any of those "landmines" when they become successful.

char 17y ago

I couldn't agree more. Patents are a complete waste of time. It is ridiculous to me that people can actually patent an idea, as if they are the only ones in the world who thought of it. (You're never the only one in the world who thought of your idea, even if you think you are.) A patent is not going to prevent someone else from executing the same idea in a better way. Meanwhile, all it does is slow down innovation and drain money and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

mattiss 17y ago
You do realize that without patents large companies have FAR less incentive to buyout novel startups right?

kiba 17y ago

"It is common to argue that intellectual property in the form of copyright and patent is necessary for the innovation and creation of ideas and inventions such as machines, drugs, computer software, books, music, literature and movies. In fact intellectual property is a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity and liberty." - Boldrin and Levine, Against Intellectual Monopoly http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi... I highly recommend that everyone should read this book, if only to elevate the average level of sophistication in HN debates about intellectual property.

chrisbennet 17y ago

I think people lose sight of just what patents are for; they are to encourage innovation. From the US Consitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" Software patents as currently practiced do not serve this purpose. Imagine if you were a writer and the words you commonly used for you craft were "owned" by others? This is the situation now for software developers.

yason 17y ago

Can anyone think of or refer to any single case where a software patent had actually and demonstrably advanced the field? Just for reference, this is not entirely rhetorical; I would like to know about such, too.