3 ms·

I don't think that is exactly true. A good patent from a very good firm in L.A. will run you about $20k. Yes, it's a lot, but I a computer engineer could sock

by fnid2 17y ago

I don't think that is exactly true. A good patent from a very good firm in L.A. will run you about $20k. Yes, it's a lot, but I a computer engineer could sock that much away in a year. Work on the software at home at night, patent it, sell the patent to Apple or Microsoft or another big company for a couple million dollars. The corporation makes $100 Million of the device. Great, the inventor got $2M and can innovate for the rest of his or her life. That's a good story in my opinion. Is that any better or worse than a social media site that gets 1,000,000 users and sells itself to google or whatever? How is that better? Seriously, and with all due respect, a lot of the social media sites that do that add little value to anyone but the investors. Sometimes they take money from their customers in nefarious ways that maybe the world would be better off without -- especially right now. So I'm a staunch supporter of software patents, because I see them as a path to freedom and a mechanism to publish ideas into the population and allow them to be built upon and improve the quality of life in the world. I think the world could use a little improvement in its quality right now. There are probably millions of people who will agree with me. When it comes down to it -- you gotta make money. That's what it comes down to and patents, any kind of patent, whether it is for wind shield wipers or for a software revolutionizes the solar energy system. If something like that saves the world, I don't see a problem with an inventor getting a little bling out of it. When it comes down to it, I just don't see the difference between gears spinning in the real world and gears spinning in a 3d model. That's every bit as much software as the algorithms and hardware behind some of what the iPhone does. Some little company patented a film that goes over glass to make it much much stronger, but still transparent with UV protection and over a decade later, a car company used that material in its windshields without ever compensating this small individual owned business. It just turned out that when the material was invented, there was no market for it. No one could figure out what to do with it. But it was within the 20 year period for the invention, which is essentially an arrangement of atoms in space, which could all be described by software. But I digress.

nostrademons 17y ago
"Work on the software at home at night, patent it, sell the patent to Apple or Microsoft or another big company for a couple million dollars." Your employer will usually own the patent then, as part of your invention disclosure agreement. California's the lone state that doesn't let employers claim ownership over inventions done in your own time, but there's a big exception for inventions that relate to the current or forseeable businesses of your employer. If you work for a big tech company, that could be practically anything.
- fnid2 17y ago
  Okay, I'll go further then to say, save up $40,000, then quit your job. Create a company called whateveryouwannacallit.com and start inventing stuff. New algorithms. Optimize compression. Optimize Video streaming. Then spend $20,000 to have an attorney draw up a patent for you. I know some. I can connect you. Then, market the patent to corporations. Start a bidding war. That's what it all boils down to. It's hard work to feed yourself and clothe yourself and be an entrepreneur and build a company that solves real problems for people that are willing to pay money for it. Those entrepreneurs should be rewarded by the system just like corporations. Corporations are people too. They are composed of employees who are their employees and feed beautiful families with children living good lives. Yes, some of them make billions, like Steve Jobs, but some of them live modest lives in an old neighborhood near downtown just like lots of other people. I think there is a lot of value here. Good value for hard work and innovation and I think there need to be more rewards for innovation that makes the world better. This is just one way it can be done. It happens genuinely everywhere. Maybe someone gets good at writing music and sells millions of albums. That's just code or could be represented with code, yet if I write an algorithm, how am I going to share that algorithm with the world and also receive the benefits. If you argue copyright, then perhaps I could copyright it, but that means the whole world has it and if the whole world has it, then the inventor gets essentially nothing. It's like open source. As I see it. Patents are the only protection for open source. When including the source code with the patent, you ensure the idea can be built upon and improved by a community of passionate people who can really do a lot to build on the myriad patents out there. A copyright doesn't do this. It's not sufficient. My argument is that Monsanto should be able to patent DNA and DNA is no different than the source code behind an algorithm. They are both equal under the law and that is the way it should be. I mean, in essence, opponents of software patents are arguing for discrimination under the law. I don't understand why computer scientists and computer engineers who build novel software systems that move stuff around and store it on physical disks aren't every bit as patentable as a crane or a type of diesel engine.
  - jfoutz 17y ago
    Monsanto can patent dna, because they got those atoms in a particular sequence. I'm willing to stipulate DNA is no different than the soruce code behind a program, but no way is that the same as an algorithm. an algorithm is a set of rules for solving the problem. i can follow those rules, i can pay someone to follow them for me. i could have a computer follow those rules, i could embed those rules in dna, do some chemistry i don't understand then extract the sequence that followed the rules i care about. The algorithm is independent of the medium. You can patent an engine. Heck, you can patent a few. You can't patent the idea of engine.
jfoutz 17y ago
Just to be clear, you're arguing software needs to license patents to simulate patented objects?

by fnid2 17y ago

nostrademons 17y ago

"Work on the software at home at night, patent it, sell the patent to Apple or Microsoft or another big company for a couple million dollars." Your employer will usually own the patent then, as part of your invention disclosure agreement. California's the lone state that doesn't let employers claim ownership over inventions done in your own time, but there's a big exception for inventions that relate to the current or forseeable businesses of your employer. If you work for a big tech company, that could be practically anything.

fnid2 17y ago
Okay, I'll go further then to say, save up $40,000, then quit your job. Create a company called whateveryouwannacallit.com and start inventing stuff. New algorithms. Optimize compression. Optimize Video streaming. Then spend $20,000 to have an attorney draw up a patent for you. I know some. I can connect you. Then, market the patent to corporations. Start a bidding war. That's what it all boils down to. It's hard work to feed yourself and clothe yourself and be an entrepreneur and build a company that solves real problems for people that are willing to pay money for it. Those entrepreneurs should be rewarded by the system just like corporations. Corporations are people too. They are composed of employees who are their employees and feed beautiful families with children living good lives. Yes, some of them make billions, like Steve Jobs, but some of them live modest lives in an old neighborhood near downtown just like lots of other people. I think there is a lot of value here. Good value for hard work and innovation and I think there need to be more rewards for innovation that makes the world better. This is just one way it can be done. It happens genuinely everywhere. Maybe someone gets good at writing music and sells millions of albums. That's just code or could be represented with code, yet if I write an algorithm, how am I going to share that algorithm with the world and also receive the benefits. If you argue copyright, then perhaps I could copyright it, but that means the whole world has it and if the whole world has it, then the inventor gets essentially nothing. It's like open source. As I see it. Patents are the only protection for open source. When including the source code with the patent, you ensure the idea can be built upon and improved by a community of passionate people who can really do a lot to build on the myriad patents out there. A copyright doesn't do this. It's not sufficient. My argument is that Monsanto should be able to patent DNA and DNA is no different than the source code behind an algorithm. They are both equal under the law and that is the way it should be. I mean, in essence, opponents of software patents are arguing for discrimination under the law. I don't understand why computer scientists and computer engineers who build novel software systems that move stuff around and store it on physical disks aren't every bit as patentable as a crane or a type of diesel engine.
- jfoutz 17y ago
  Monsanto can patent dna, because they got those atoms in a particular sequence. I'm willing to stipulate DNA is no different than the soruce code behind a program, but no way is that the same as an algorithm. an algorithm is a set of rules for solving the problem. i can follow those rules, i can pay someone to follow them for me. i could have a computer follow those rules, i could embed those rules in dna, do some chemistry i don't understand then extract the sequence that followed the rules i care about. The algorithm is independent of the medium. You can patent an engine. Heck, you can patent a few. You can't patent the idea of engine.

jfoutz 17y ago

Just to be clear, you're arguing software needs to license patents to simulate patented objects?