6 ms·

With your ideas about patents someone should do it out of the kindness of their heart I guess. Is that what has driven most technological advancements of the h

With your ideas about patents someone should do it out of the kindness of their heart I guess. Is that what has driven most technological advancements of the human race? In your software-patentless world, why would a genius choose to work in software as opposed to another field inventing patentable tangible objects where he or she will be monetarily rewarded for it and able to make a living? Don't say you are already paid by your employer to program. Someone inventing physical objects would probably also be already paid by their employer to work. This brings us back to why would a genius choose to work in a field that won't reward them for their genius?

vkou 10y ago
No, you get a patent for your secret anti-clog dishwasher, so that the courts grant you a monopoly on it. In exchange, you have to give something back - specifically, you have to reveal your secret design to society - so that it is useful to someone in the future. That's the contract that you agree to, when you patent something. If you don't want to reveal your design, you could always keep it a trade secret. If you're a genius working on software, you shouldn't have trouble filing a patent that would be useful to another engineer, once it expires. For some reason, though, people instead patent stupid shit like 'a software system that does _______.' They don't actually explain how to build a software system that does _____, they don't give anything back to society, and are instead leeching of the largess of our legal system. If you want protection for your invention, tell us how it works. It's a pretty simple concept.
- Scea91 10y ago
  But does mp3 fall in the category you describe? I agree with you that many software patents should not be granted, but the distinction should not be between software/notsoftware.
microwavecamera 10y ago
The problem is software isn't tangible. Something like an algorithm is different. It's mathematically provable. The vast majority of software patents are based on preexisting concepts such as the patent IBM was awarded for "Resolution of Abbreviated Text in an Electronic Communications System", which is a database that looks up abbreviations like netspeak and fills in the full word. Or Google's patent for "Variable User Interface Based on Document Access Privileges" which shows something different on a webpage based on your geographical location. Something websites had been doing for years. These frivolous software patents by major tech companies are predatory and stifle innovation. They know the patents won't hold up in court, but they can afford protracted legal battles startups cant and use that leverage to strong-arm smaller companies.
__jal 10y ago
Right, it was only after the patent office was invented that people started inventing things. Before that, nothing of consequence was created by humanity.
- bogositosius 10y ago
  Isn't it odd that they were able to invent the patent office without an already existing patent office? Quite a miracle.
chc 10y ago
Software patents aren't particularly useful for making money with software. Hackers produce code, which is protected by copyright, and that's how the law protects them from having their work stolen. Patents are a bad match for software, and are mainly used for two things: 1. Trolls use them to seek rent from independent creations. 2. Companies that are not purely trolls but need a vector to attack another company sometimes use them in the same way trolls do. 3. Entities that actually make software use them as a deterrent against patent claims. Nobody actually depends on them for the profitability of software they've made, and nobody actually benefits from the disclosures in expired patents. Software patents are purely weapons. The hypothetical genius you're talking about would not be harmed at all if they went away, and would be better off because they'd be spared the vicissitudes of patent trolls' attention.
- wbl 10y ago
  What about 4: research institute that invents an audio compression method? The work that goes into mp3 isn't just coding the method.
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    Debating software patents with silicon valley types is a losing battle. They're the types who would stand to profit from someones non-obvious software invention not being patentable, and so most such people are unsurprisingly against software patents. There's little nuance involved beyond that.
    - bogositosius 10y ago
      What is a "Silicon Valley type"?
      - hackinthebochs 10y ago
        People who see themselves as entrepreneurs/hustlers/hackers, in contrast to scientists/inventors/researchers.

vkou 10y ago

No, you get a patent for your secret anti-clog dishwasher, so that the courts grant you a monopoly on it. In exchange, you have to give something back - specifically, you have to reveal your secret design to society - so that it is useful to someone in the future. That's the contract that you agree to, when you patent something. If you don't want to reveal your design, you could always keep it a trade secret. If you're a genius working on software, you shouldn't have trouble filing a patent that would be useful to another engineer, once it expires. For some reason, though, people instead patent stupid shit like 'a software system that does _______.' They don't actually explain how to build a software system that does _____, they don't give anything back to society, and are instead leeching of the largess of our legal system. If you want protection for your invention, tell us how it works. It's a pretty simple concept.

Scea91 10y ago
But does mp3 fall in the category you describe? I agree with you that many software patents should not be granted, but the distinction should not be between software/notsoftware.

microwavecamera 10y ago

The problem is software isn't tangible. Something like an algorithm is different. It's mathematically provable. The vast majority of software patents are based on preexisting concepts such as the patent IBM was awarded for "Resolution of Abbreviated Text in an Electronic Communications System", which is a database that looks up abbreviations like netspeak and fills in the full word. Or Google's patent for "Variable User Interface Based on Document Access Privileges" which shows something different on a webpage based on your geographical location. Something websites had been doing for years. These frivolous software patents by major tech companies are predatory and stifle innovation. They know the patents won't hold up in court, but they can afford protracted legal battles startups cant and use that leverage to strong-arm smaller companies.

__jal 10y ago

Right, it was only after the patent office was invented that people started inventing things. Before that, nothing of consequence was created by humanity.

bogositosius 10y ago
Isn't it odd that they were able to invent the patent office without an already existing patent office? Quite a miracle.

chc 10y ago

Software patents aren't particularly useful for making money with software. Hackers produce code, which is protected by copyright, and that's how the law protects them from having their work stolen. Patents are a bad match for software, and are mainly used for two things: 1. Trolls use them to seek rent from independent creations. 2. Companies that are not purely trolls but need a vector to attack another company sometimes use them in the same way trolls do. 3. Entities that actually make software use them as a deterrent against patent claims. Nobody actually depends on them for the profitability of software they've made, and nobody actually benefits from the disclosures in expired patents. Software patents are purely weapons. The hypothetical genius you're talking about would not be harmed at all if they went away, and would be better off because they'd be spared the vicissitudes of patent trolls' attention.

wbl 10y ago
What about 4: research institute that invents an audio compression method? The work that goes into mp3 isn't just coding the method.
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  Debating software patents with silicon valley types is a losing battle. They're the types who would stand to profit from someones non-obvious software invention not being patentable, and so most such people are unsurprisingly against software patents. There's little nuance involved beyond that.
  - bogositosius 10y ago
    What is a "Silicon Valley type"?
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      People who see themselves as entrepreneurs/hustlers/hackers, in contrast to scientists/inventors/researchers.