4 ms·

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

by 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.
- akeefer 17y ago
  I'm a fan of clearly-delineated lines of argumentation since it's difficult to have a debate if people just talk past each other. It's much more fruitful if you can really pinpoint exactly where it is that you disagree with the other person: if I think "B" is true and you disagree, it's much more useful for me to say, "Well, I think A->B and A, so thus B is true" and then you can say "Well I agree that A->B but think A is false" or "Well I agree A is true, but I don't agree that A->B", and then we can have a much more useful conversation instead of talking past each other. In the case of the patent issue, there are so many entangled issues that it's often difficult to find the real points of agreement and disagreement. I'd be interested to see someone actually try to make the argument that more good comes from the current system of software patents than would come from a system with no patents, since from my perspective the balance is pretty negative. On the good side you have inventions/work that wouldn't have happened without patents, the resulting utility created by them both in the form of direct usefulness to end-users and in terms of economic activity they fostered, and the knowledge sharing enabled purely by patents and all its resulting downstream effects. On the bad side, you have all the inventions and work lost due to patents: all the work not done because of fear of patent litigation, jobs lost due to companies sued of existence by patent trolls, all the resulting loss of utility to end users, and the economic cost of diverting so many resources to patent litigation. Personally, I would argue that far more is not done or is lost in the software world because of patents than is gained because of them; if you just eliminated all software patents I think you'd see a net gain in worldwide utility rather than a net loss. Copyright and trade secret protections mean that most software activity would still happen (that's what pretty much everyone uses for protection anyway: only big shops have the resources to really use their patent portfolio, and then it's often purely defensive), so the main loss would be in terms of disclosure. What you'd lose in terms of, say, not reading papers on PageRank, you'd more than gain back in terms of startups that don't get shut down and by diverting all that money spent on the legal system to better purposes.
  - justinsb 17y ago
    I agree that reasoned and clear debate is the best approach. I've tried to make the case 'pro' by citing the impact of PageRank/MapReduce/GFS, and suggesting that the impact is no less than reshaping the way we think about computing. So what are the (non-anecdotal) examples of the costs? It's also important to put those costs into context, because everything has negative unintended consequences in the real world. What's the total annual expenditure on patent litigation benchmarked against (for example) medical malpractice cases? Which companies have been shut down by patent trolls benchmarked against (for example) the companies shut down by new environmental legislation? Which inventions are available on some platforms and not others (e.g. ClearType), and what's the productivity cost of them benchmarked against (say) not pursuing remedies against the Microsoft monopoly?

by akeefer 17y ago

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.

akeefer 17y ago
I'm a fan of clearly-delineated lines of argumentation since it's difficult to have a debate if people just talk past each other. It's much more fruitful if you can really pinpoint exactly where it is that you disagree with the other person: if I think "B" is true and you disagree, it's much more useful for me to say, "Well, I think A->B and A, so thus B is true" and then you can say "Well I agree that A->B but think A is false" or "Well I agree A is true, but I don't agree that A->B", and then we can have a much more useful conversation instead of talking past each other. In the case of the patent issue, there are so many entangled issues that it's often difficult to find the real points of agreement and disagreement. I'd be interested to see someone actually try to make the argument that more good comes from the current system of software patents than would come from a system with no patents, since from my perspective the balance is pretty negative. On the good side you have inventions/work that wouldn't have happened without patents, the resulting utility created by them both in the form of direct usefulness to end-users and in terms of economic activity they fostered, and the knowledge sharing enabled purely by patents and all its resulting downstream effects. On the bad side, you have all the inventions and work lost due to patents: all the work not done because of fear of patent litigation, jobs lost due to companies sued of existence by patent trolls, all the resulting loss of utility to end users, and the economic cost of diverting so many resources to patent litigation. Personally, I would argue that far more is not done or is lost in the software world because of patents than is gained because of them; if you just eliminated all software patents I think you'd see a net gain in worldwide utility rather than a net loss. Copyright and trade secret protections mean that most software activity would still happen (that's what pretty much everyone uses for protection anyway: only big shops have the resources to really use their patent portfolio, and then it's often purely defensive), so the main loss would be in terms of disclosure. What you'd lose in terms of, say, not reading papers on PageRank, you'd more than gain back in terms of startups that don't get shut down and by diverting all that money spent on the legal system to better purposes.
- justinsb 17y ago
  I agree that reasoned and clear debate is the best approach. I've tried to make the case 'pro' by citing the impact of PageRank/MapReduce/GFS, and suggesting that the impact is no less than reshaping the way we think about computing. So what are the (non-anecdotal) examples of the costs? It's also important to put those costs into context, because everything has negative unintended consequences in the real world. What's the total annual expenditure on patent litigation benchmarked against (for example) medical malpractice cases? Which companies have been shut down by patent trolls benchmarked against (for example) the companies shut down by new environmental legislation? Which inventions are available on some platforms and not others (e.g. ClearType), and what's the productivity cost of them benchmarked against (say) not pursuing remedies against the Microsoft monopoly?