3 ms·

> The point is that monopolies on ideas are fundamentally unfair... I could just as easily say "free-riding off somebody else's ingenuity is fundamentally unfa

> The point is that monopolies on ideas are fundamentally unfair... I could just as easily say "free-riding off somebody else's ingenuity is fundamentally unfair". > ... but it is provably false in Software. Citation needed? Many of the sources cited in OP have flaws and/or have been refuted elsewhere, especially studies by Bessen & co. Many of their other sources are from people who don't know the first thing about patents. They cite that "This American Life" episode where the clueless dude from M-CAM suggested there's a patent on toast, something that you'd know is BS with a glance at the actual claim and 5 minutes of research on Google. On the other hand, there are studies showing that having patents increases the chances of software startups get VC funding and successful exits by a factor of four. How much innovation happens without funding? Even the majority of open source is financed by various industry sources. > When has something (in software) been invented by building on some text in a patent filing? And how often is something in software not been built by simply copying somebody else's ideas? Some ideas are harder to generate (e.g. RSA) than others (e.g. online pet store) and deserve protection.

phaemon 10y ago
> I could just as easily say "free-riding off somebody else's ingenuity is fundamentally unfair". You could, but it would be ludicrous. The very existence of human civilisation is due to "free-riding off somebody else's ingenuity". > And how often is something in software not been built by simply copying somebody else's ideas? Who cares. Not copying ideas is not the purpose of patents, it's the exact opposite. > On the other hand, there are studies showing that having patents increases the chances of software startups get VC funding Again, irrelevant. Getting startup funding is not the purpose of patents. If you want the role of patents to be to help startups then that should be their stated role. In which case, you'd probably only allow companies <5 years old to hold a patent, they'd only be valid for 5 years, and ownership could not be transferred. Of course then you have something very different from our current system, but frankly it sounds a lot better.
loup-vaillant 10y ago
> free-riding off somebody else's ingenuity is fundamentally unfair Ideas are not a rival good. When you share an idea with someone, you don't lose half of it. You both get the whole idea. So it's not a zero-sum game. As long as the genius gets rewarded, free riding is fair. > How much innovation happens without funding? […] Some ideas are harder to generate (e.g. RSA) Well, the best and hardest ideas tend to be state-funded anyway. RSA for instance was funded by MIT salaries¹ (Rivest, Shadir, and Abelman worked there). ARPANET (now the internet) was basically a DOD project. You're right, inventions need funding. Patent just aren't the only way —nor, I would argue, the most efficient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_%28cryptosystem%29#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_%28cryptosystem%29#History

phaemon 10y ago

> I could just as easily say "free-riding off somebody else's ingenuity is fundamentally unfair". You could, but it would be ludicrous. The very existence of human civilisation is due to "free-riding off somebody else's ingenuity". > And how often is something in software not been built by simply copying somebody else's ideas? Who cares. Not copying ideas is not the purpose of patents, it's the exact opposite. > On the other hand, there are studies showing that having patents increases the chances of software startups get VC funding Again, irrelevant. Getting startup funding is not the purpose of patents. If you want the role of patents to be to help startups then that should be their stated role. In which case, you'd probably only allow companies <5 years old to hold a patent, they'd only be valid for 5 years, and ownership could not be transferred. Of course then you have something very different from our current system, but frankly it sounds a lot better.

loup-vaillant 10y ago

> free-riding off somebody else's ingenuity is fundamentally unfair Ideas are not a rival good. When you share an idea with someone, you don't lose half of it. You both get the whole idea. So it's not a zero-sum game. As long as the genius gets rewarded, free riding is fair. > How much innovation happens without funding? […] Some ideas are harder to generate (e.g. RSA) Well, the best and hardest ideas tend to be state-funded anyway. RSA for instance was funded by MIT salaries¹ (Rivest, Shadir, and Abelman worked there). ARPANET (now the internet) was basically a DOD project. You're right, inventions need funding. Patent just aren't the only way —nor, I would argue, the most efficient. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_%28cryptosystem%29#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_%28cryptosystem%29#History