4 ms·

Watching the impact software related patents in the world, I've become increasingly skeptical of their sensibility. The patent system was conceived in an age w

Watching the impact software related patents in the world, I've become increasingly skeptical of their sensibility. The patent system was conceived in an age when innovation was represented by complex works like the steam engine. Invention was the result of applied engineering and ingenuity. Now that system is weaponized by organizations claiming exclusive use over something as mundane as a UI gesture. An institution intended to spur innovation is achieving the exact opposite, chilling effect. Here's an interesting comment from a seasoned investor on the value of formal IP protection to the average internet startup: https://youtu.be/15iWltPLuPY?t=2274 https://youtu.be/15iWltPLuPY?t=2274 While I can't find it now, I recall another I/O talk where an investor was asked by an aspiring founder how to deal with the fear of unwittingly treading on someone's patent. In response he opined the very act of innovating in today's world makes you likely to trip over some patent or another, and his guidance was to focus on building a great product. I'd love a world where companies compete based on the merits of their product and talent of those who craft it. Let them stay relevant by continuously pushing the leading edge of innovation, rather than resting on the laurels of accomplishments from 20 years ago. Kudos to companies which have commited to never using patents for offense, and bigger kudos to those who have gifted their IP to the world.

rayiner 8y ago
> Kudos to companies which have commited to never using patents for offense, and bigger kudos to those who have gifted their IP to the world. That gives credit to companies simply for being in particular types of industries. Facebook and Google have opened up large amounts of IP in the form of open source. They do so because they don't sell software; software is just a gateway to their ad platforms and user databases (which, unsurprisingly, are well-guarded). Does that deserve "kudos" compared to say, Microsoft, which doesn't open up IP as much because it's in the business of exchanging software for money? I don't see a moral distinction to be made there.
- fhrow4484 8y ago
  > Does that deserve "kudos" compared to say, Microsoft, which doesn't open up IP as much because it's in the business of exchanging software for money? I believe you must have missed the news of Microsoft sharing 10,000 patents with their azure customers? Is it different from what you're referring to? https://startups.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-ip-advantage-protecting-innovation-in-the-cloud/ https://startups.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-ip-advantage...
- arebop 8y ago
  If there's an industry predicated on immoral activities, then there is a moral distinction to be drawn between businesses in that industry and businesses in industries that have no such requirement to act immorally.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Is "advertising and hoovering up user data is more moral than patents" really the hill you want to defend?
    - arebop 8y ago
      I'm actually fine with both having advertising and with the existence or stewardship of user data, but in fact the hill I want to defend is "the profitability of an enterprise does not determine its moral quality."
dantheman 8y ago
The effectiveness of patents, even in the past, is not clear. If you look at what happened to the steam engine, it wasn't until the patents expired that it really took off. Patents aren't about morally owning property -- they're about their effectiveness. The case of patents needs to be made for their continuation. Intellectual property is a misnomer, it's not property -- it's restrictions on what others can do with their own property.
- rayiner 8y ago
  The steam engine example isn't a good one. The whole point of patents is to create a temporary period of monopoly that enables investment to be recovered, to enable a subsequent period of wide adoption. If the prospect of the temporary monopoly convinced investors to invest in the steam engine in the first place, and the inventor did recover his investment, then the subsequent commoditization of the invention when the patents expired is exactly how the system is supposed to work. The history of technology repeatedly shows that (temporary) monopolies are good things. The transistor was invented by the AT&T monopoly. GUIs, email, and networking were bankrolled by Xerox's patent monopoly on copiers. (PARC declined almost immediately after a DOJ suit forced Xerox to license its patents to Japanese competitors.) Google's panoply of innovations is bankrolled by its near-monopoly on search. By contrast, commoditization tends to kill innovation in an industry. PCs have languished for two decades now thanks to a highly competitive environment where companies like Lenovo struggle to eke out a few percent in profit margins.

rayiner 8y ago

> Kudos to companies which have commited to never using patents for offense, and bigger kudos to those who have gifted their IP to the world. That gives credit to companies simply for being in particular types of industries. Facebook and Google have opened up large amounts of IP in the form of open source. They do so because they don't sell software; software is just a gateway to their ad platforms and user databases (which, unsurprisingly, are well-guarded). Does that deserve "kudos" compared to say, Microsoft, which doesn't open up IP as much because it's in the business of exchanging software for money? I don't see a moral distinction to be made there.

fhrow4484 8y ago
> Does that deserve "kudos" compared to say, Microsoft, which doesn't open up IP as much because it's in the business of exchanging software for money? I believe you must have missed the news of Microsoft sharing 10,000 patents with their azure customers? Is it different from what you're referring to? https://startups.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-ip-advantage-protecting-innovation-in-the-cloud/ https://startups.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/azure-ip-advantage...
arebop 8y ago
If there's an industry predicated on immoral activities, then there is a moral distinction to be drawn between businesses in that industry and businesses in industries that have no such requirement to act immorally.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Is "advertising and hoovering up user data is more moral than patents" really the hill you want to defend?
  - arebop 8y ago
    I'm actually fine with both having advertising and with the existence or stewardship of user data, but in fact the hill I want to defend is "the profitability of an enterprise does not determine its moral quality."

dantheman 8y ago

The effectiveness of patents, even in the past, is not clear. If you look at what happened to the steam engine, it wasn't until the patents expired that it really took off. Patents aren't about morally owning property -- they're about their effectiveness. The case of patents needs to be made for their continuation. Intellectual property is a misnomer, it's not property -- it's restrictions on what others can do with their own property.

rayiner 8y ago
The steam engine example isn't a good one. The whole point of patents is to create a temporary period of monopoly that enables investment to be recovered, to enable a subsequent period of wide adoption. If the prospect of the temporary monopoly convinced investors to invest in the steam engine in the first place, and the inventor did recover his investment, then the subsequent commoditization of the invention when the patents expired is exactly how the system is supposed to work. The history of technology repeatedly shows that (temporary) monopolies are good things. The transistor was invented by the AT&T monopoly. GUIs, email, and networking were bankrolled by Xerox's patent monopoly on copiers. (PARC declined almost immediately after a DOJ suit forced Xerox to license its patents to Japanese competitors.) Google's panoply of innovations is bankrolled by its near-monopoly on search. By contrast, commoditization tends to kill innovation in an industry. PCs have languished for two decades now thanks to a highly competitive environment where companies like Lenovo struggle to eke out a few percent in profit margins.