6 ms·

Patents are living up to their ideals

18 points by amirnathoo 17y ago

frognibble 17y ago
The author uses the timing of Google's patent filings and published papers to imply that Google would not have published the papers without patent protection. I think the timing of the events does not provide enough information to determine what Google would have done without the patents. Google might have freely published the papers in a world with no software patents.
- kiba 17y ago
  It is probable that Google would have published their algorithms after a long period of time. By the time that happen, the old algorithm would probably have no competitive advantage anyway.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- justinsb 17y ago
  I'm the author... and yes, the 'implication' is exactly what I'm saying. As I said in the post, you can argue that Google would have published in a world without software patents, but the purpose of patents is to incentivize publication where otherwise advances would remain secret, and that's the sequence that we saw. In that sense, we're seeing exactly what the patent system envisages. Your point of view seems to be that companies would publish their secret sauce freely without IP protection, for the warm fuzzies / indirect benefits that would result. You're free to believe that, but the patent system is based around the idea that corporations don't behave so altruistically - that people with billion dollar ideas don't want to give them away.
kiba 17y ago
I once read/heard an argument against the patent system in that the patent system didn't really help disclose secret inventions. What it does is shift the focus of inventions from the highly secretive kind to inventions whom inter-working would be rapidly discovered anyway. Something to think about. (BTW, everyone should read Against Intellectual Monopoly at http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...)
jcl 17y ago
The "disclosure" argument would hold more water if people actually read software patents, or went out of their way to license patents from other companies. But it seems to me that the vast majority of software patent cases are ones where the infringing company has either come up with the invention independently or imitated the external behavior of something else. In which case, the disclosure aspect of software patents is practically worthless. The article argues that we wouldn't know how Google works without patents, but the truth is that those Google patents alone don't get you Google performance -- most of their system is protected not by patents but trade secrets. And this has not stopped Yahoo, Bing, or others from coming up with viable search engines.
- justinsb 17y ago
  But people do read the papers, and I'd argue that the papers are only published because the patent has been filed. I'm willing to bet that 80% of the hackers here have read the MapReduce paper (and for anyone that hasn't, you should!), but I agree I'd be surprised if people have read the patent. Independent invention is a problem, and that's why there's a non-obviousness test for patentability. Of course, that's a very tricky thing to implement in the real world. So what you're really arguing is a higher standard of non-obviousness; I hope you'll be submitting that proposal to the USPTO. I'd actually argue that Google's performance _does_ come from MapReduce. The trade secrets (that we know of) are around their customized hardware and the weighting factors in their algorithm, but I'd argue that makes a relatively small difference compared to Google's big idea, which was figuring out how to harness together lots of cheap computers, rather than investing in making each computer more efficient (e.g. Altavista, whose original raison-d'etre was to demonstrate how the DEC Alpha computer was powerful enough to support searching the whole Internet of the day)
  - kiba 17y ago
    It would seem to me that I cannot use the described algorithm and put it to work without landing in possible legal troubles. These patents may actually slow down technological development rather than increase the pace. We get the fringe benefit of knowing something for real but we are unable to put it to work. In the world where open source hardware companies like Makerbot Industries are coming into existence and that the phrase "the atoms becoming the new bit" is becoming more true everyday, this is a worrying obstacle in technological progress. People cannot voluntary share and benefit from each other without a fear of patent holder infringing on their ability to do so, no matter how innovative he might be. The patent system is incompatible with certain business models that relies on the openness of their product, and a whole path of technological development. This is the price we pay for assuming that people won't share information about algorithms and other useful knowledge. The only question is, will the positive black swans of the patent world will truly outweigh all the lost potential of the open source paradigm? Just remember, positive black swan in the open source world can happen too!(Linux, Mozilla Firefox, and more)
akeefer 17y ago
One particular example doesn't make for a very compelling argument. The vast majority of software patents (probably above 99% of them) are A) never followed up with scientific papers, B) represent nothing that someone else trying to solve the same problem wouldn't come up with, and C) are written so incomprehensibly that no one could ever derive any intellectual value from reading them. Throwing out counter-examples of "good" software patents doesn't really attack the thrust of the main argument put forward by the anti-software-patent people, which is that almost all software patents are total trash that should never be granted. I think you can make one of foudarguments here. 1) You can dispute the assertion that almost all software patents granted should have failed the obviousness/novelty test and/or be invalidated by prior art. 2) You can argue that the patent system should be tightened up so that most patents aren't granted, but to still allow certain types of patents (encryption algorithms, whatever else) and then discuss how to classify what sort of patents really are useful. 3) You can admit that but argue that the good done by the "good" patents outweighs the evil done by the "bad" patents. 4) You can argue that you should ditch all software patents entirely because the harm caused by bad patents vastly outweighs the good done by good patents, and that it's too difficult to legally distinguish between the two, so on balance it's better to just disallow them Again, keep in mind that copyright and trade secret law cover already cover the theft of the software itself, and that plenty of people online talk about what they do and how they do it without any sort of patent protection. So I'm not sure which argument this article is trying to make (though it's obviously not #4): are you arguing that software patents aren't, on average, total garbage? That standards should be tightened up to allow only a limited subset of what's currently patentable, and that the Google patents fall under that umbrella? Or that the good done by these few patents somehow outweighs all the harm done by all the garbage patents and associated trolling? It's totally valid to point out that not all patents are a joke, and that some good can come of them, but that in and of itself doesn't really address the real meat of the debate.
- justinsb 17y ago
  I'm arguing simply that Google's papers were IMHO the most influential Computer Science papers of the past decade, and they wouldn't necessarily have been published without patents. The patent system is designed to encourage exactly the sort of disclosure we saw here, in this particularly important case. I chose this 'one particular example' because it's the inventions where the papers are published that are important; not the 'bad' patents which should never have been granted and where the USPTO overturns the patent on re-examination (as I suspect many bad patents, like the linked-list patent, would be.) I like the idea of a standardized patent argument list! I'll take argument #3 please.
gojomo 17y ago
Google only published because they felt secure with the advantage conferred by their patents? That idea only makes sense if Google now starts enforcing their patent-granted monopoly on these techniques: suing people who are doing the things they've published. They haven't. Until they do, this model of Google's patenting/publishing motivations is flawed.
dpifke 17y ago
Academics continue to publish papers in fields where patent protection is unavailable (history, literature, etc.), so I fail to buy the argument that no scientific papers about computing would be published if it weren't for software patents.

18 points by amirnathoo 17y ago

The author uses the timing of Google's patent filings and published papers to imply that Google would not have published the papers without patent protection. I think the timing of the events does not provide enough information to determine what Google would have done without the patents. Google might have freely published the papers in a world with no software patents.

kiba 17y ago
It is probable that Google would have published their algorithms after a long period of time. By the time that happen, the old algorithm would probably have no competitive advantage anyway.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
justinsb 17y ago
I'm the author... and yes, the 'implication' is exactly what I'm saying. As I said in the post, you can argue that Google would have published in a world without software patents, but the purpose of patents is to incentivize publication where otherwise advances would remain secret, and that's the sequence that we saw. In that sense, we're seeing exactly what the patent system envisages. Your point of view seems to be that companies would publish their secret sauce freely without IP protection, for the warm fuzzies / indirect benefits that would result. You're free to believe that, but the patent system is based around the idea that corporations don't behave so altruistically - that people with billion dollar ideas don't want to give them away.

kiba 17y ago

I once read/heard an argument against the patent system in that the patent system didn't really help disclose secret inventions. What it does is shift the focus of inventions from the highly secretive kind to inventions whom inter-working would be rapidly discovered anyway. Something to think about. (BTW, everyone should read Against Intellectual Monopoly at http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...)

jcl 17y ago

The "disclosure" argument would hold more water if people actually read software patents, or went out of their way to license patents from other companies. But it seems to me that the vast majority of software patent cases are ones where the infringing company has either come up with the invention independently or imitated the external behavior of something else. In which case, the disclosure aspect of software patents is practically worthless. The article argues that we wouldn't know how Google works without patents, but the truth is that those Google patents alone don't get you Google performance -- most of their system is protected not by patents but trade secrets. And this has not stopped Yahoo, Bing, or others from coming up with viable search engines.

justinsb 17y ago
But people do read the papers, and I'd argue that the papers are only published because the patent has been filed. I'm willing to bet that 80% of the hackers here have read the MapReduce paper (and for anyone that hasn't, you should!), but I agree I'd be surprised if people have read the patent. Independent invention is a problem, and that's why there's a non-obviousness test for patentability. Of course, that's a very tricky thing to implement in the real world. So what you're really arguing is a higher standard of non-obviousness; I hope you'll be submitting that proposal to the USPTO. I'd actually argue that Google's performance _does_ come from MapReduce. The trade secrets (that we know of) are around their customized hardware and the weighting factors in their algorithm, but I'd argue that makes a relatively small difference compared to Google's big idea, which was figuring out how to harness together lots of cheap computers, rather than investing in making each computer more efficient (e.g. Altavista, whose original raison-d'etre was to demonstrate how the DEC Alpha computer was powerful enough to support searching the whole Internet of the day)
- kiba 17y ago
  It would seem to me that I cannot use the described algorithm and put it to work without landing in possible legal troubles. These patents may actually slow down technological development rather than increase the pace. We get the fringe benefit of knowing something for real but we are unable to put it to work. In the world where open source hardware companies like Makerbot Industries are coming into existence and that the phrase "the atoms becoming the new bit" is becoming more true everyday, this is a worrying obstacle in technological progress. People cannot voluntary share and benefit from each other without a fear of patent holder infringing on their ability to do so, no matter how innovative he might be. The patent system is incompatible with certain business models that relies on the openness of their product, and a whole path of technological development. This is the price we pay for assuming that people won't share information about algorithms and other useful knowledge. The only question is, will the positive black swans of the patent world will truly outweigh all the lost potential of the open source paradigm? Just remember, positive black swan in the open source world can happen too!(Linux, Mozilla Firefox, and more)

akeefer 17y ago

One particular example doesn't make for a very compelling argument. The vast majority of software patents (probably above 99% of them) are A) never followed up with scientific papers, B) represent nothing that someone else trying to solve the same problem wouldn't come up with, and C) are written so incomprehensibly that no one could ever derive any intellectual value from reading them. Throwing out counter-examples of "good" software patents doesn't really attack the thrust of the main argument put forward by the anti-software-patent people, which is that almost all software patents are total trash that should never be granted. I think you can make one of foudarguments here. 1) You can dispute the assertion that almost all software patents granted should have failed the obviousness/novelty test and/or be invalidated by prior art. 2) You can argue that the patent system should be tightened up so that most patents aren't granted, but to still allow certain types of patents (encryption algorithms, whatever else) and then discuss how to classify what sort of patents really are useful. 3) You can admit that but argue that the good done by the "good" patents outweighs the evil done by the "bad" patents. 4) You can argue that you should ditch all software patents entirely because the harm caused by bad patents vastly outweighs the good done by good patents, and that it's too difficult to legally distinguish between the two, so on balance it's better to just disallow them Again, keep in mind that copyright and trade secret law cover already cover the theft of the software itself, and that plenty of people online talk about what they do and how they do it without any sort of patent protection. So I'm not sure which argument this article is trying to make (though it's obviously not #4): are you arguing that software patents aren't, on average, total garbage? That standards should be tightened up to allow only a limited subset of what's currently patentable, and that the Google patents fall under that umbrella? Or that the good done by these few patents somehow outweighs all the harm done by all the garbage patents and associated trolling? It's totally valid to point out that not all patents are a joke, and that some good can come of them, but that in and of itself doesn't really address the real meat of the debate.

justinsb 17y ago
I'm arguing simply that Google's papers were IMHO the most influential Computer Science papers of the past decade, and they wouldn't necessarily have been published without patents. The patent system is designed to encourage exactly the sort of disclosure we saw here, in this particularly important case. I chose this 'one particular example' because it's the inventions where the papers are published that are important; not the 'bad' patents which should never have been granted and where the USPTO overturns the patent on re-examination (as I suspect many bad patents, like the linked-list patent, would be.) I like the idea of a standardized patent argument list! I'll take argument #3 please.

gojomo 17y ago

Google only published because they felt secure with the advantage conferred by their patents? That idea only makes sense if Google now starts enforcing their patent-granted monopoly on these techniques: suing people who are doing the things they've published. They haven't. Until they do, this model of Google's patenting/publishing motivations is flawed.

dpifke 17y ago

Academics continue to publish papers in fields where patent protection is unavailable (history, literature, etc.), so I fail to buy the argument that no scientific papers about computing would be published if it weren't for software patents.