5 ms·

This brought myself into a grand realization. I've always anticipated that the right thing for myself would be to pass any opportunity to contribute to any pat

by yason 16y ago

This brought myself into a grand realization. I've always anticipated that the right thing for myself would be to pass any opportunity to contribute to any patent applications should I ever "invent" anything potentially "worth" patenting. I have seen that patents greatly harm the software ecosystem and I don't think I would ever want to take part in any of that. However, now that I think about it I will never even consider. I'll just say "No" right out of the way, and walk away from the opportunity as quickly as I can. I announce that, as of today if my current, at any time, employer happened to be patent-unfriendly, only file defensive patents, never litigate anyone, and perhaps win some patent trolls because of their accumulated defensive intellectual "property" I will still say "No" to getting myself involved in any patent application. Even if I was offered a bonus for that. Or a job. This whole Sun vs. Oracle thing made me realize that software patents are categorically undesirable. Patents are like guns. Maybe so because I'm a pacifist. Now: sure, you can buy a cabinet full of rifles, shotguns and pistols to defend your house on the prairie should the evil gansters arrive. However, if they do and succeed in taking over your house, then they have the guns. This is exactly what has happened here. And with companies desperate for money, it's probably easier than robbing a house. Thus, there's no such thing as a defensive patent: patents are all offensive, even if most of them (software patents) are bogus. While a good-spirited company or person might choose to not exercise the monopoly granted by patent law, it only postpones the inevitable unless the patent expires before that. Similarly, there are no defensive guns. All guns are designed to wound or kill people. All patents are designed to take away other hackers' freedom to make the world better. I'll reconsider my stance when I see the first useful software patent and when all the useless ones are revoked.

Twisol 16y ago
While I think the gun analogy was a little superfluous - perhaps because we clearly look at the gun situation differently - I completely agree with you otherwise. Software patents, even if "unused", are a threat lingering above your head like a guillotine. Even if the person in charge of that guillotine promises you they'll never let it drop, you'll probably not put your head under there for fear of what could happen. Sun guarded the guillotine. Oracle "bought them out", and now they have the guillotine. Google put its head under the guillotine. Now we get to see how sharp it is, and whether Google brought body armor.
- Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
  And you questioned his analogy?! (Not questioning the point, just suggesting that we all go back to metaphor school this afternoon for a little brush up).
chadgeidel 16y ago
I'm wondering how - if you created something that is potentially patentable - would you "protect" it? Not protect in the sense of "ensure a revenue stream" but protect in the sense of "ensure it's available royalty-free for any future users"? From what I understand, Licenses (MIT/Apache/GNU) are different than Patents, so it seems that just licensing it wouldn't work. Can you receive a patent and then immediately put said patented idea into the public domain?
- yason 16y ago
  I think it's sufficient to publish it as soon as you can. It then becomes prior art that can't (theoretically) be patented later.
xiaoma 16y ago
Unless this prairie happens to be on the set of a Jackie Chan movie, the gangsters already have guns. They don't need to rob your house to get them. Following your analogy, your employer will certainly have other patents and other ways of getting them than through you. It's a systemic problem that has to be treated at a higher level.

by yason 16y ago

Twisol 16y ago

While I think the gun analogy was a little superfluous - perhaps because we clearly look at the gun situation differently - I completely agree with you otherwise. Software patents, even if "unused", are a threat lingering above your head like a guillotine. Even if the person in charge of that guillotine promises you they'll never let it drop, you'll probably not put your head under there for fear of what could happen. Sun guarded the guillotine. Oracle "bought them out", and now they have the guillotine. Google put its head under the guillotine. Now we get to see how sharp it is, and whether Google brought body armor.

Tyrannosaurs 16y ago
And you questioned his analogy?! (Not questioning the point, just suggesting that we all go back to metaphor school this afternoon for a little brush up).

chadgeidel 16y ago

I'm wondering how - if you created something that is potentially patentable - would you "protect" it? Not protect in the sense of "ensure a revenue stream" but protect in the sense of "ensure it's available royalty-free for any future users"? From what I understand, Licenses (MIT/Apache/GNU) are different than Patents, so it seems that just licensing it wouldn't work. Can you receive a patent and then immediately put said patented idea into the public domain?

yason 16y ago
I think it's sufficient to publish it as soon as you can. It then becomes prior art that can't (theoretically) be patented later.

xiaoma 16y ago

Unless this prairie happens to be on the set of a Jackie Chan movie, the gangsters already have guns. They don't need to rob your house to get them. Following your analogy, your employer will certainly have other patents and other ways of getting them than through you. It's a systemic problem that has to be treated at a higher level.