3 ms·

I don't believe the math patentability rebuttal holds, otherwise it can be readily extended to the real world through assembly instructions for tangible inventi

I don't believe the math patentability rebuttal holds, otherwise it can be readily extended to the real world through assembly instructions for tangible inventions, especially with the advent of 3d printing. I'm not saying the patent system is bug-free, but I am saying it'll be a lot harder to drive the kind of innovation we're used to seeing here with no patent protection at all (copyright only protects the implementation, and trade secrets are things you don't share e.g. as client-side code). Full disclosure: I've got a few to my name. I don't think any of the inventors I know would've even bothered inventing the patterns they/we did if the protection didn't exist. Unpopular opinion, I'm certain.

eloff 9y ago
3d printing makes a physical invention, patentable like any other. The manner of assembly is not relevant. Software is math and it shouldn't be patentable. I think very little good has come of that at all.
- eganist 9y ago
  I'm sure I'm missing something, but where would the economic incentive to develop the majority of (specifically) client-side applications have come from especially in the era before the .com boom?
  - eloff 9y ago
    You still have copyright protecting your code. All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution. There's clones of every successful company, patents didn't change that. But most fail. It was easy to clone Facebook the website way back when or Snapchat the app. Good luck beating them at their own game though. For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again.
    - eganist 9y ago
      I'd initially contested the idea of copyright protecting code in my above comment but decided to redact it to see which direction this conversation would take. (Tangent: Trade secrets protect knowledge implemented within my spheres of trust, i.e. "my systems.") Copyright protects the literal documentation/expression of knowledge, such as an algorithm, not the knowledge itself. As an example, reimplementing a novel algorithm in a different language or over a different framework will likely be enough to subvert copyright protection over the code itself. Copyright will ineffectively protect novel algorithms, whereas patents do a good job of protecting these algorithms in well-exposed contexts e.g. client-side from unauthorized imitation and usage day zero (or, more realistically, day 30). Barring a tactical or strategic error in the approved patent — a wonderful example of this, if I recall correctly, is the Swype patent¹ which prompts the user to pick a word rather than guess one for the user — the patent will effectively cover the algorithm in any implementation for the statutory duration. A separate issue: "All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution." That's the use case that garners the most press coverage. The sort that's more prevalent and far less noisy is licensing, and this happens far, far more often, and generally with not so much as a peep in the press. In fact, this is one survival strategy used by some startups as they pivot when they've created novel technologies but have devised ineffective business models around them. This moots the following statement: "For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again." — it really depends on how the patents are acquired, such as through deferred equity compensation. I'd argue against doing so in cash, but doing so with equity could make sense especially if the startup's novel ideas are expected to be executed in untrusted (read: client, or "not my systems") environments. My main argument is that software patent durations need to be cropped. Could be three years, could be five, but given the pace of software development, twenty is patently (ahem) anti-competitive in the software world. That's the argument I'll stand by unless anyone has a proposal to protect and incentivize the creation of novel algorithms without the use of patents. Source: the numerous IP lawyers I've worked with during both my day job and consulting engagements. But I'm not an attorney, which means there's a nontrivial chance I got some of the nuances wrong, but I'm willing to attach my name to the overall message. --- ¹—http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,098,896.PN.&OS=PN/7,098,896&RS=PN/7,098,896 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... "The present invention then generates a list of possible words associated with the entered part and presents it to user for selection."

eloff 9y ago

3d printing makes a physical invention, patentable like any other. The manner of assembly is not relevant. Software is math and it shouldn't be patentable. I think very little good has come of that at all.

eganist 9y ago
I'm sure I'm missing something, but where would the economic incentive to develop the majority of (specifically) client-side applications have come from especially in the era before the .com boom?
- eloff 9y ago
  You still have copyright protecting your code. All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution. There's clones of every successful company, patents didn't change that. But most fail. It was easy to clone Facebook the website way back when or Snapchat the app. Good luck beating them at their own game though. For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again.
  - eganist 9y ago
    I'd initially contested the idea of copyright protecting code in my above comment but decided to redact it to see which direction this conversation would take. (Tangent: Trade secrets protect knowledge implemented within my spheres of trust, i.e. "my systems.") Copyright protects the literal documentation/expression of knowledge, such as an algorithm, not the knowledge itself. As an example, reimplementing a novel algorithm in a different language or over a different framework will likely be enough to subvert copyright protection over the code itself. Copyright will ineffectively protect novel algorithms, whereas patents do a good job of protecting these algorithms in well-exposed contexts e.g. client-side from unauthorized imitation and usage day zero (or, more realistically, day 30). Barring a tactical or strategic error in the approved patent — a wonderful example of this, if I recall correctly, is the Swype patent¹ which prompts the user to pick a word rather than guess one for the user — the patent will effectively cover the algorithm in any implementation for the statutory duration. A separate issue: "All a patent does is let you have a lot of time and money for an option to sue some types of companies trying to clone your idea. But companies are all about the execution." That's the use case that garners the most press coverage. The sort that's more prevalent and far less noisy is licensing, and this happens far, far more often, and generally with not so much as a peep in the press. In fact, this is one survival strategy used by some startups as they pivot when they've created novel technologies but have devised ineffective business models around them. This moots the following statement: "For any startups here thinking patents are a good use of their time - think again." — it really depends on how the patents are acquired, such as through deferred equity compensation. I'd argue against doing so in cash, but doing so with equity could make sense especially if the startup's novel ideas are expected to be executed in untrusted (read: client, or "not my systems") environments. My main argument is that software patent durations need to be cropped. Could be three years, could be five, but given the pace of software development, twenty is patently (ahem) anti-competitive in the software world. That's the argument I'll stand by unless anyone has a proposal to protect and incentivize the creation of novel algorithms without the use of patents. Source: the numerous IP lawyers I've worked with during both my day job and consulting engagements. But I'm not an attorney, which means there's a nontrivial chance I got some of the nuances wrong, but I'm willing to attach my name to the overall message. --- ¹—http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,098,896.PN.&OS=PN/7,098,896&RS=PN/7,098,896 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=H... "The present invention then generates a list of possible words associated with the entered part and presents it to user for selection."