10 ms·

How about a world with no patents at all and let's just see what happens.

by dpcan 16y ago

gaius 16y ago
Patents are broken in implementation, not as a concept.
- nova 16y ago
  Maybe a non-broken implementation is not possible.
  - gaius 16y ago
    It is if you can first solve the problem of getting people with domain knowledge to work as patent clerks, or if there is a "peer review" process or something. The alternative to patents is not "all information wants to be free", it's paranoid secrecy. If people are to invest in R&D, they need protection from copycats. I mean, check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html
    - kiba 16y ago
      The alternative to patents is not "all information wants to be free", it's paranoid secrecy. If people are to invest in R&D, they need protection from copycats. I mean, check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html The other alternative is that people get along with openness just fine. Beside, people don't have an inherent right to a technological secret, at least in the normal cases.
      - gaius 16y ago
        You are making the same economic mistake that a lot of anti-IP types do, which is that you assume that the cost of duplicating a thing has any relation to the cost of producing it in the first place. It does if you're talking about, I dunno, spoons. The point of patents is, if you discover a method of doing something, you patent it, and if anyone wants to use your process, they pay you to license it. So we provide a mechanism - but not the guarantee, since no-one might be interested - for a return on an investment into R&D. Do you really, honestly believe that a drug company would research a new drug, spend a decade shepherding it through clinical trials and FDA approval (we are talking an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars) and then a generic manufacturer sells it for a little over the price of the raw materials, having gotten all the hard work done for them for free? Because even if they wanted to they couldn't; they'd be bankrupt.
        gnaritas 16y ago
        > The point of patents is, if you discover a method of doing something, you patent it, and if anyone wants to use your process, they pay you to license it. So we provide a mechanism - but not the guarantee, since no-one might be interested - for a return on an investment into R&D. That is not the point of the patent system, that is the means by which the actual goal is obtained. The goal of the patent system is make the information public so all of mankind can benefit from it and the knowledge doesn't die with the inventor. Buying off the inventor with a limited monopoly on the idea is merely a means to an end.
        gaius 16y ago
        The goal of the patent system is make the information public so all of mankind can benefit from it and the knowledge doesn't die with the inventor If you have a mechanism other than patents that makes it economically possible for private organizations to engage in capital-intensive R&D and make the information public, let's hear it.
        gnaritas 16y ago
        Where exactly did I imply that? I was merely pointing out the motivations of the patent system. The system is not necessary for companies to be economically viable as they've been doing that with trade secrets long before patents were around. The patent system was meant to unlock those trade secrets for the benefit of the public, it was never about the inventor's best interests.
        kiba 16y ago
        You are making the same economic mistake that a lot of anti-IP types do, which is that you assume that the cost of duplicating a thing has any relation to the cost of producing it in the first place. It does if you're talking about, I dunno, spoons. I have made no such claim. In any case, producing in the first place will cost an order of magnitude more than copying. However, this seem to be of little hindrance in the observations that I been able to make over the years.
      - kam 16y ago
        Paranoid secrecy probably costs more to maintain than the benefit they receive from it. Their secret isn't much of a competitive advantage. Their brand is. Keep trademark, kill patents. > "Some bakery experts were skeptical about Bimbo’s claims of top-secret processes, saying the mythology surrounding Thomas’ muffins was more about smart product branding than proprietary baking. The basic techniques for making an English muffin were widely known, they said: English muffin dough is very watery and when it is cooked at high heat the water evaporates quickly and leaves large air pockets."
- akeefer 16y ago
  I agree, but what's the chance that we'll ever get a non-broken implementation? If someone really tries to fix it, that would be great, but what are the odds it'll really be fixed instead of just being broken in different ways? From my perspective, ExpectedChanceOfBrokenness * ExpectedCostOfBrokenness > ExpectedCostOfKillingThem . . . so the probabilistically optimal course is to just kill patents for software (and business methods), even if it's not the absolutely optimal course.
- kiba 16y ago
  Sometime, you don't fix what's not broken. Patents are probably a solution to a non-existent problem that everyone assume to exists.
- krakensden 16y ago
  I think it might be more accurate to say the legal system is broken, because that's what makes patents so dangerous. You can't afford to participate in the legal system unless you have lots of money, and patents are just one way incumbent companies can force their competitors into litigation.
- kjrose 16y ago
  This is true about many ideals. See socialist, laissez-faire capitalist, and communist supporters for arguing points. Hell, see any utopian idealistic system. The excuse is the implementation always fails. How many times does implementation have to fail before we start to question whether it is simply possible to implement it correctly and whether it's worth the cost and frustration in the first place?
kenjackson 16y ago
The world of SW is largely already a world w/o software patents. Very few companies are effected by SW patents. And even startup companies generally spend very little money on patents. And in my experience, I've never met anyone at a startup company who didn't implement a technology due to a patent. But I have certainly worked with large companies, MS, IBM, HP, who have not implemented a technology due to patents. It seems like a world w/o patents would simply strengthen MS and IBM. And probably have no net effect on startups, except in the unlikely event they do something innovative, but is somewhat easily replicated once seen.
- akeefer 16y ago
  Software patents affect small companies when they get sued by big companies or patent trolls. It happens all the time, and when it does there's basically no defense unless you have a huge patent portfolio and can countersue . . . which, if you're a small company or the other side is a patent troll, you can't do.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Maybe it happens, but I've never seen it happen in my career. I'm sure it does, but its pretty rare. And I've never seen any startup make a technology decision based on existing patents. I have been involved in patent litigation for many large companies, in a defensive role. And while some do blatantly violate patents, they generally go out of their way to work around the patent. And there are some oft-requested features that don't exist in very popular products that don't exist solely due to patents. And even patent trolls attack large companies more. I just don't think that if you're a startup company you have much rational reason to care about patents. And if you do fear them, I suspect you'll likely fail due to that fact I doubt you're very rational.
    - ww520 16y ago
      May be because big companies have the deep pocket so they are the target of patent lawsuit? For small companies, software patent has the chilling effect in prevent them in doing certain things.
cesare 16y ago
Somewhat related: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1583938 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1583938
jacoblyles 16y ago
Some economists argue that this would be a good idea. See: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...
- andreyf 16y ago
  Ack. Just the size and variety of industries whose operations are defined by patent law (medical research, for example - both drugs and equipment) makes this kind of proposition a lot more complicated than we can comprehend, I think.
  - jacoblyles 16y ago
    Did you listen to the podcast or read his book? The author offers a lot of historical evidence and argument to back up his position.

How about a world with no patents at all and let's just see what happens.

by dpcan 16y ago

How about a world with no patents at all and let's just see what happens.

gaius 16y ago

Patents are broken in implementation, not as a concept.

nova 16y ago
Maybe a non-broken implementation is not possible.
- gaius 16y ago
  It is if you can first solve the problem of getting people with domain knowledge to work as patent clerks, or if there is a "peer review" process or something. The alternative to patents is not "all information wants to be free", it's paranoid secrecy. If people are to invest in R&D, they need protection from copycats. I mean, check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html
  - kiba 16y ago
    The alternative to patents is not "all information wants to be free", it's paranoid secrecy. If people are to invest in R&D, they need protection from copycats. I mean, check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/business/07muffin.html The other alternative is that people get along with openness just fine. Beside, people don't have an inherent right to a technological secret, at least in the normal cases.
    - gaius 16y ago
      You are making the same economic mistake that a lot of anti-IP types do, which is that you assume that the cost of duplicating a thing has any relation to the cost of producing it in the first place. It does if you're talking about, I dunno, spoons. The point of patents is, if you discover a method of doing something, you patent it, and if anyone wants to use your process, they pay you to license it. So we provide a mechanism - but not the guarantee, since no-one might be interested - for a return on an investment into R&D. Do you really, honestly believe that a drug company would research a new drug, spend a decade shepherding it through clinical trials and FDA approval (we are talking an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars) and then a generic manufacturer sells it for a little over the price of the raw materials, having gotten all the hard work done for them for free? Because even if they wanted to they couldn't; they'd be bankrupt.
      - gnaritas 16y ago
        > The point of patents is, if you discover a method of doing something, you patent it, and if anyone wants to use your process, they pay you to license it. So we provide a mechanism - but not the guarantee, since no-one might be interested - for a return on an investment into R&D. That is not the point of the patent system, that is the means by which the actual goal is obtained. The goal of the patent system is make the information public so all of mankind can benefit from it and the knowledge doesn't die with the inventor. Buying off the inventor with a limited monopoly on the idea is merely a means to an end.
        gaius 16y ago
        The goal of the patent system is make the information public so all of mankind can benefit from it and the knowledge doesn't die with the inventor If you have a mechanism other than patents that makes it economically possible for private organizations to engage in capital-intensive R&D and make the information public, let's hear it.
        gnaritas 16y ago
        Where exactly did I imply that? I was merely pointing out the motivations of the patent system. The system is not necessary for companies to be economically viable as they've been doing that with trade secrets long before patents were around. The patent system was meant to unlock those trade secrets for the benefit of the public, it was never about the inventor's best interests.
      - kiba 16y ago
        You are making the same economic mistake that a lot of anti-IP types do, which is that you assume that the cost of duplicating a thing has any relation to the cost of producing it in the first place. It does if you're talking about, I dunno, spoons. I have made no such claim. In any case, producing in the first place will cost an order of magnitude more than copying. However, this seem to be of little hindrance in the observations that I been able to make over the years.
    - kam 16y ago
      Paranoid secrecy probably costs more to maintain than the benefit they receive from it. Their secret isn't much of a competitive advantage. Their brand is. Keep trademark, kill patents. > "Some bakery experts were skeptical about Bimbo’s claims of top-secret processes, saying the mythology surrounding Thomas’ muffins was more about smart product branding than proprietary baking. The basic techniques for making an English muffin were widely known, they said: English muffin dough is very watery and when it is cooked at high heat the water evaporates quickly and leaves large air pockets."
akeefer 16y ago
I agree, but what's the chance that we'll ever get a non-broken implementation? If someone really tries to fix it, that would be great, but what are the odds it'll really be fixed instead of just being broken in different ways? From my perspective, ExpectedChanceOfBrokenness * ExpectedCostOfBrokenness > ExpectedCostOfKillingThem . . . so the probabilistically optimal course is to just kill patents for software (and business methods), even if it's not the absolutely optimal course.
kiba 16y ago
Sometime, you don't fix what's not broken. Patents are probably a solution to a non-existent problem that everyone assume to exists.
krakensden 16y ago
I think it might be more accurate to say the legal system is broken, because that's what makes patents so dangerous. You can't afford to participate in the legal system unless you have lots of money, and patents are just one way incumbent companies can force their competitors into litigation.
kjrose 16y ago
This is true about many ideals. See socialist, laissez-faire capitalist, and communist supporters for arguing points. Hell, see any utopian idealistic system. The excuse is the implementation always fails. How many times does implementation have to fail before we start to question whether it is simply possible to implement it correctly and whether it's worth the cost and frustration in the first place?

kenjackson 16y ago

The world of SW is largely already a world w/o software patents. Very few companies are effected by SW patents. And even startup companies generally spend very little money on patents. And in my experience, I've never met anyone at a startup company who didn't implement a technology due to a patent. But I have certainly worked with large companies, MS, IBM, HP, who have not implemented a technology due to patents. It seems like a world w/o patents would simply strengthen MS and IBM. And probably have no net effect on startups, except in the unlikely event they do something innovative, but is somewhat easily replicated once seen.

akeefer 16y ago
Software patents affect small companies when they get sued by big companies or patent trolls. It happens all the time, and when it does there's basically no defense unless you have a huge patent portfolio and can countersue . . . which, if you're a small company or the other side is a patent troll, you can't do.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Maybe it happens, but I've never seen it happen in my career. I'm sure it does, but its pretty rare. And I've never seen any startup make a technology decision based on existing patents. I have been involved in patent litigation for many large companies, in a defensive role. And while some do blatantly violate patents, they generally go out of their way to work around the patent. And there are some oft-requested features that don't exist in very popular products that don't exist solely due to patents. And even patent trolls attack large companies more. I just don't think that if you're a startup company you have much rational reason to care about patents. And if you do fear them, I suspect you'll likely fail due to that fact I doubt you're very rational.
  - ww520 16y ago
    May be because big companies have the deep pocket so they are the target of patent lawsuit? For small companies, software patent has the chilling effect in prevent them in doing certain things.

cesare 16y ago

Somewhat related: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1583938 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1583938

jacoblyles 16y ago

Some economists argue that this would be a good idea. See: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.html http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/05/boldrin_on_inte.htm...

andreyf 16y ago
Ack. Just the size and variety of industries whose operations are defined by patent law (medical research, for example - both drugs and equipment) makes this kind of proposition a lot more complicated than we can comprehend, I think.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  Did you listen to the podcast or read his book? The author offers a lot of historical evidence and argument to back up his position.