6 ms·

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 re

by 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ideas at the same time, and if all the recent ideas are patented, no one will be able do anything that isn't 20 years out of date unless they have a defensive patent portfolio of their own.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.

by 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.