3 ms·

it wouldn't be quite the same because software does not have physical material properties. IMO this difference is crucial.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
klq 8y ago
To me software patents and patents for, for example, real world engines are the same. It's okay not to like patents, but separating software patents from the rest makes no sense.
- Cyph0n 8y ago
  Ah, but you are overlooking the key difference: you cannot commercialize an engine without building it. With software, commercialization costs "nothing" [1]. A smaller company could come up with a unique engine design, but without patent protection, a bigger company could just drop by and take the design and build it themselves. In other words, the larger company would get R&D "for free". In the engineering world, only by "building" the design can you make money (in general). So without patents, there would be no reason for smaller companies to exist, simply because such companies would have no counter-measure for their lack of financial resources. [1]: Nothing here means "no physical resources". The big costs would be labor and compute (depending on the idea). But I would argue that labor is a bigger cost for a company that would like to build an engine at scale (initial design, manufacturing, testing, supply chain, and so on).
  - leereeves 8y ago
    I don't think that's really different between hardware and software. Even in software, the bigger company often has a decisive advantage in marketing. The history of computing is littered with the graves of small companies crushed by behemoths. So that might actually be an argument in favor of software patents, if they actually did protect the interests of small companies. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to implement a new idea in software without using a lot of other recent ideas at the same time, and if all the recent ideas are patented, no one will be able do anything that isn't 20 years out of date unless they have a defensive patent portfolio of their own.
    - Cyph0n 8y ago
      > I don't think that's really different between hardware and software. Marketing budget is something inherent in small vs. big companies in all industries, so I do not agree that the fact that software and hardware share this makes them similar. Your example does demonstrate a benefit of software patents in theory, but is this how they are typically used in practice?
  - Someone 8y ago
    ”With software, commercialization costs "nothing”” So, I invent a method that dramatically improves search engines. How do I commercialize it for “nothing”, if I’m not one of the few companies with access to a huge data set, and cannot protect my invention with patents?
    - Cyph0n 8y ago
      Did you read my footnote? And yes, there are definitely exceptions, but my point is that the general case in software != the general case in engineering, which is why you cannot directly compare the effect the patent system has on the two fields.
pnw_hazor 8y ago
So-called software patents are always drafted as machines that can perform the claimed actions. These machines are comprised of one or more hardware components, including some hardware components that can execute machine readable instructions. (There really is no such thing as a software patent.)
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  In Europe we do manage to make that distinction, though it is nuanced, and it specifically excludes the "program on a media" or "program in the physical memory of a computer" methods of trying to make all software appear to be physically technological.
  - pnw_hazor 8y ago
    True, through many well-drafted US "software patents" can be successfully prosecuted in the EU without too much trouble.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
Patents were meant to protect the person who invented a particular physical object or physical process. Patenting software amounts to patenting algorithms, which is basically patenting math. It's far broader in scope by its very nature. On top of that, it's not hard to get software patents on things that are obvious, often by simply patenting "$well_established_process, but in software".

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

klq 8y ago

To me software patents and patents for, for example, real world engines are the same. It's okay not to like patents, but separating software patents from the rest makes no sense.

Cyph0n 8y ago
Ah, but you are overlooking the key difference: you cannot commercialize an engine without building it. With software, commercialization costs "nothing" [1]. A smaller company could come up with a unique engine design, but without patent protection, a bigger company could just drop by and take the design and build it themselves. In other words, the larger company would get R&D "for free". In the engineering world, only by "building" the design can you make money (in general). So without patents, there would be no reason for smaller companies to exist, simply because such companies would have no counter-measure for their lack of financial resources. [1]: Nothing here means "no physical resources". The big costs would be labor and compute (depending on the idea). But I would argue that labor is a bigger cost for a company that would like to build an engine at scale (initial design, manufacturing, testing, supply chain, and so on).
- leereeves 8y ago
  I don't think that's really different between hardware and software. Even in software, the bigger company often has a decisive advantage in marketing. The history of computing is littered with the graves of small companies crushed by behemoths. So that might actually be an argument in favor of software patents, if they actually did protect the interests of small companies. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to implement a new idea in software without using a lot of other recent ideas at the same time, and if all the recent ideas are patented, no one will be able do anything that isn't 20 years out of date unless they have a defensive patent portfolio of their own.
  - Cyph0n 8y ago
    > I don't think that's really different between hardware and software. Marketing budget is something inherent in small vs. big companies in all industries, so I do not agree that the fact that software and hardware share this makes them similar. Your example does demonstrate a benefit of software patents in theory, but is this how they are typically used in practice?
- Someone 8y ago
  ”With software, commercialization costs "nothing”” So, I invent a method that dramatically improves search engines. How do I commercialize it for “nothing”, if I’m not one of the few companies with access to a huge data set, and cannot protect my invention with patents?
  - Cyph0n 8y ago
    Did you read my footnote? And yes, there are definitely exceptions, but my point is that the general case in software != the general case in engineering, which is why you cannot directly compare the effect the patent system has on the two fields.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

So-called software patents are always drafted as machines that can perform the claimed actions. These machines are comprised of one or more hardware components, including some hardware components that can execute machine readable instructions. (There really is no such thing as a software patent.)

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
In Europe we do manage to make that distinction, though it is nuanced, and it specifically excludes the "program on a media" or "program in the physical memory of a computer" methods of trying to make all software appear to be physically technological.
- pnw_hazor 8y ago
  True, through many well-drafted US "software patents" can be successfully prosecuted in the EU without too much trouble.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago

Patents were meant to protect the person who invented a particular physical object or physical process. Patenting software amounts to patenting algorithms, which is basically patenting math. It's far broader in scope by its very nature. On top of that, it's not hard to get software patents on things that are obvious, often by simply patenting "$well_established_process, but in software".