6 ms·

Software Patents Have Got to Go

103 points by bakbak 16y ago

Synaesthesia 16y ago
The instant I saw it was John Dvorak I closed the tab.
- sigzero 16y ago
  Don't let your hatred blind you.
- Lagged2Death 16y ago
  I can understand this reaction, but even a crazy pundit can be right twice a day.
  - dasil003 16y ago
    Dvorak doesn't deserve the page hit even if he's right. His trolling methodology fills the world with uninformed hyperbole, which should not be rewarded even if it's occasionally right.
  - billswift 16y ago
    But is it worth the time and trouble of figuring out whether this time it is worth reading? I have a whole list of websites and people mounted on the wall over my monitor who have been so outrageously incompetent in the past that I avoid reading them. If they have shown such a low quality of accuracy on things I do know about, there is no way I can trust them on things I don't already know, so there is no point to reading them. (Note I only do this for actual facts that were flagrantly wrong, I read a lot of opinions that I disagree with.)
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
sdghrth 16y ago
-------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://yep.it/fyphgj http://yep.it/fyphgj ------ Gold autumn, personality Men’s clothing + Shoes, Travel bag that grabs an eye coat + Chao packet Free transport -------- http://yep.it/fyphgj http://yep.it/fyphgj ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------
iwwr 16y ago
Not just software patents, but intellectual "property" in general. Boldrin & Levine: "Against Intellectual Monopoly" http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm
- wazoox 16y ago
  34 years after Bill Gates' open letter to the "pirates" and decades of heavy propaganda and legal actions from the BSA, RIAA, etc, the general public still isn't convinced that copying bits is wrong. If after decades trying you can't change people minds, it must be that you're wrong and they're right. Intellectual Property must die.
  - klbarry 16y ago
    Just because the public wants something doesn't make it right.
    - pmichaud 16y ago
      The reality is that this is exactly how we as a species define "right": we do what we want to do, and eventually we invent justifications and frameworks to make what we already do the "right" thing. Eventually, when enough people don't want to do something anymore, that becomes "wrong." I'm not saying this is how it should rightly be, I'm just saying this is how it is. I bet you eat animals that have been tortured and killed in factory farms, and you have a bunch of a really great justifications for that. QED.
      - wzdd 16y ago
        >I bet you eat animals that have been tortured and killed in factory farms, and you have a bunch of a really great justifications for that. QED. As a vegetarian I feel that bringing out this argument (implying that a particular person is hypocritical -- and yes, I understand the societally-approved point), in response to a discussion on copyright patents, is below the standard of discussion I expect from HN. In general this discussion seems to include a lot of "no it isn't" / "yes it is" type bickering without much substance, and to be honest I blame the original article, which was content-free. Up above we have people arguing for the abolition of all intellectual property, and others claiming that mob rule is the basis for democracy. I don't see why the issue is such a binary one. Clearly the patent system needs reform. It's not at all clear that it needs to disappear entirely.
Jach 16y ago
I flagged this since we don't need a new one of these articles every day...
dean 16y ago
It's depressing to see a respected and influential software industry icon resorting to patent trolling like this. I expect it from lawyers and corporate-raider types, but was surprised to see Paul Allen doing it. To cherry pick a quote from Dvorak's article: Paul Allen says he has a patent for a "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information...". On the other hand, corporations love a monopoly, and I guess Paul Allen wants to be involved in another one.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  How likely is Paul Allen doing this as an attempt to weaken software patents? MS is trying the SCOTUS in an effort to make it more difficult to assert claims. Wonder if this might be part of the same strategic play. Doubtful, I know.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    Very unlikely. He targeted everyone but Gates. His attack is legitimate. However Allen can feel just, I guess, given that he has dedicated most his wealth to charity after he dies. So he's essentially playing Robin Hood.
tkeller 16y ago
> Basically, Allen got an omnibus patent that covers all these characteristics No. He didn't. And regardless of whether software patents need to go, ignorant media coverage certainly needs to go.
- aristidb 16y ago
  Most people, including myself, cannot actually read patents. Being told that the summary is irrelevant does not help at all. What are we supposed to do, ignore the patent because we don't understand it?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - tkeller 16y ago
    Rabble rabble rabble. I hate this attitude: I don't understand software patents, and I'm not going to take the time to learn about them, therefore they need to go.
    - chc 16y ago
      If your post had been informational rather than insulting, he probably would have taken the time to read it and learn.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
    If you're a programmer, you can read software patents. If you're a mechanical engineer, you can read mechanical patents, If you're a farmer, you can read farming patents. See how that works? The language is dense, and you must read carefully, but the patents I have actually read are not particularly difficult to understand.
    - Jach 16y ago
      > If you're a programmer, you can read software patents. Here I can bring in a different definition of "can". I could if I wanted browse different software patents, but that just puts me or my company in more legal trouble especially if sometime later I happen to develop something similar enough to a patent I've previously read that I get sued over it. It's not a good idea to just read patents blindly if you have any interest in building stuff that might get popular. Though I suppose it's probably safe to read the Linked List patent, which is one of the clearest and silliest I've ever seen: http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...
maeon3 16y ago
Software Patents should be allowed, however the rules on them need to be heavily modified so that the real spirit of the patent can reward resourceful hard working innovators. Patents were meant to protect programmer, however since programmers tend to work for big businesses and the big businesses absorb all the rights to the code, the software patent is only protecting businesses. I propose a change. Software patents should have timeouts that increase and decrease depending on the amount of genuine innovative breakthrough contained in the code. If I make a new website that does something people like that never has been done before, then I get so many cents for anyone else using it for so many weeks (something like this would need to be strictly enforced). Now suppose some programmer created a new bit of software that takes Human DNA as input and outputs a list of instructions on how to reverse aging on that version of the human genome. In this case the software patent would be Longer, with more of a payoff for others who copied it and used it inside the time frame. Software Patenting isn't evil, it was meant to protect US, the programmers, it is just a completely broken system so that it isn't helping at all.
- aristidb 16y ago
  Maybe they were meant to protect the inventor. But if they cause more harm than benefit, that is no excuse to keep them. Results matter, not intents.
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > Software Patenting isn't evil Except that it is.
  - sorbus 16y ago
    [Citation needed]
cletus 16y ago
This isn't anything new. Pretty much anyone who knows anything about software is against software patents except for a few with a vested interest. The patent system was originally created to protect investment and foster innovation by providing exclusivity but requiring disclosure to further research by others and of course there is a time limit. The problem is that ideas (which is what software patents and business models come down to) have next to no cost (unlike, say, new drugs that have substantial R&D costs, trials, etc). Lawyers have gotten very good at perverting this system [1]. I remember reading about Intel's system bus (I think in relation to Nvidia producing chipsets without a license). Basically parts of the system were patented, some copyrighted and the rest was a trade secret. Combined it meant Intel basically didn't have to disclose anything but could still go after those who reverse engineer. Once I used to support pharma-patents but I'm changing my mind on even that. I believe the high cost of health care in the US is in large part to the protections and monopolies suppliers have. The counterargument is that many of these things wouldn't exist without these protections but I think the pendulum has swung too far. Something like two-thirds of the budget for a new drug goes on marketing [2]. Worse, we're starting to see copyright trolls [3] who are basically producing reams of crap in the hopes that someone inadvertently infringes on that so they can be sued. So IP is horribly broken, not just for software. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Overlap_with_copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Overlap_with_co... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll
- EGreg 16y ago
  Thank you! I was just writing about this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2039527 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2039527
- roadnottaken 16y ago
  As a biochemist, I can assure you that if pharma-patents went away, drug-development would disappear overnight. One can argue over the specifics, but some form of IP protection is necessary in that arena.
tgflynn 16y ago
US patent law (as well as copyright law) derives from Article I section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The question is do patents actually promote the progress of science and technology ? I suspect that they do not because while they create additional monetary incentives to pursue innovation at the same time they restrict the free flow of ideas which is the driving force behind scientific and technical progress. The free exchange and use of information is probably the source of the exponential progress in "information technologies" that Ray Kurzweil has discovered. It seems likely that impediments to the exchange and use of information, such as patents, can only reduce the rate of exponential growth. Perhaps if patents had never existed our technology would be far more advanced than it currently is. If it were ever possible to prove conclusively that patents impede rather than promote progress, they would become unconstitutional in the US.
- EGreg 16y ago
  Agreed, however there is something to be said about giving incentives to the little guy. Basically what entrepreneurs who are just starting out think NDAs should do, but better. Say you come up with a great new idea in software. And you want to make an agreement with someone to implement this idea. Without patents, they can have "their uncle's company in China" to do the idea (think CrunchPad), rename it to avoid any trademark issues, and screw you. How would you protect against this? This issue faces almost every inventor of an idea, as they will have to make business agreements with someone. Thus, although you would be encouraging free flow of information within the tree, you would be cutting off a large source of it -- individual inventors. Patents won't be going away because it's hard to distinguish between the above example, and a patent troll.
  - tgflynn 16y ago
    Yes, I've often heard this argument. Personally, speaking as a "little guy' who is interested in advancing technology and making a good living doing it, I am far more worried that some corporation will be able to claim patent "protection" over my ideas. This seems far more probable to me than the inverse situation of someone else independently discovering my invention and beating me in the market. Also even if that happened I'd much rather compete in the market than in a court room. As for the specific case you mention, I think, especially in software, that it's becoming far easier for an individual inventor to take his invention to market rather than needing to sell it to a large corporation. Also this argument seems largely based on the notion, which I think is most often incorrect, that most value lies in a simple idea rather than in the execution of that idea. In other words that you have some idea that can be stated in a few English sentences that has tremendous value and that no one else has thought of. You only need divulge that idea and anyone on the planet will be able to beat you in the market. Such ideas, if they exist at all, are exceedingly rare, maybe once in a generation occurrences. All recent examples of highly successful innovation: Microsoft, Google, Facebook relied far more on the quality of execution - the construction of solutions from many small ideas - than on one overarching genius discovery. And it is exactly this form of value creation which patents impede.
EGreg 16y ago
Now that's what I'm talking about! Patents were originally intended to encourage investors in a time when bringing a product to market could take years. In the software industry, that assumption is, to put it mildly, totally off. Therefore, in the software industry, granting someone a 17 year monopoly on an idea just encourages another, destructive type of strategy that hurts the entire industry: PATENT TROLLING. Seriously, it is a legal strategy to describe something to the government, wait a few years and then go after the people who actually BUILT IT (even if they came up with it independently, as long as they can't prove they came up with it before you described it in a patent application). That's BULL CRAP. You didn't do anything except write some paper. If you're good at it, you don't even need a lawyer. And you get to collect money from the hard work of others. On the other hand, I feel that if you DID write a patent, AND you tried to make it work, AND you are succeeding, you SHOULD be able to prevent your competitors from just copying what you did. But not for 17 years. For two years at most! It is in this latter sense that the patent system is great. I'd get a provisional patent over an NDA anyday. Because it's more legally enforceable. Say a company meets with me and I tell them the idea. First of all I don't have to require them to sign any NDA. Secondly, suppose they say, "nice idea, we are going to do it ourselves". I can tell them, "I have a provisional patent, and I will sue your ass in 2 years." Or I can tell them NOTHING, go ahead and convert it to a real patent (probably $5k out of my pocket) and go sue them 2 years later. Not 17 years later. This, I don't mind. They wanted to screw me by stealing my idea, they got burned. This will encourage companies to NOT screw individual investors and actually decide if they want to wait 3 years before making this, or work with the inventor. With NDAs, there is no way to prove anything. I spoke to Bobby, and they signed an NDA. Then, Charlie Inc. comes out with my product. I didn't make Charlie, Inc. sign anything, and Bobby doesn't have the $5 million dollars to pay me, and I can't prove he told anything to Charlie, Inc. OOPS. That's what software patents should protect against. That's it. They currently do, but we don't need 17 years of that kind of protection!

103 points by bakbak 16y ago

Synaesthesia 16y ago

The instant I saw it was John Dvorak I closed the tab.

sigzero 16y ago
Don't let your hatred blind you.
Lagged2Death 16y ago
I can understand this reaction, but even a crazy pundit can be right twice a day.
- dasil003 16y ago
  Dvorak doesn't deserve the page hit even if he's right. His trolling methodology fills the world with uninformed hyperbole, which should not be rewarded even if it's occasionally right.
- billswift 16y ago
  But is it worth the time and trouble of figuring out whether this time it is worth reading? I have a whole list of websites and people mounted on the wall over my monitor who have been so outrageously incompetent in the past that I avoid reading them. If they have shown such a low quality of accuracy on things I do know about, there is no way I can trust them on things I don't already know, so there is no point to reading them. (Note I only do this for actual facts that were flagrantly wrong, I read a lot of opinions that I disagree with.)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

sdghrth 16y ago

-------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://yep.it/fyphgj http://yep.it/fyphgj ------ Gold autumn, personality Men’s clothing + Shoes, Travel bag that grabs an eye coat + Chao packet Free transport -------- http://yep.it/fyphgj http://yep.it/fyphgj ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------ -------- http://ta.gg/4wt http://ta.gg/4wt ------

iwwr 16y ago

Not just software patents, but intellectual "property" in general. Boldrin & Levine: "Against Intellectual Monopoly" http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

wazoox 16y ago
34 years after Bill Gates' open letter to the "pirates" and decades of heavy propaganda and legal actions from the BSA, RIAA, etc, the general public still isn't convinced that copying bits is wrong. If after decades trying you can't change people minds, it must be that you're wrong and they're right. Intellectual Property must die.
- klbarry 16y ago
  Just because the public wants something doesn't make it right.
  - pmichaud 16y ago
    The reality is that this is exactly how we as a species define "right": we do what we want to do, and eventually we invent justifications and frameworks to make what we already do the "right" thing. Eventually, when enough people don't want to do something anymore, that becomes "wrong." I'm not saying this is how it should rightly be, I'm just saying this is how it is. I bet you eat animals that have been tortured and killed in factory farms, and you have a bunch of a really great justifications for that. QED.
    - wzdd 16y ago
      >I bet you eat animals that have been tortured and killed in factory farms, and you have a bunch of a really great justifications for that. QED. As a vegetarian I feel that bringing out this argument (implying that a particular person is hypocritical -- and yes, I understand the societally-approved point), in response to a discussion on copyright patents, is below the standard of discussion I expect from HN. In general this discussion seems to include a lot of "no it isn't" / "yes it is" type bickering without much substance, and to be honest I blame the original article, which was content-free. Up above we have people arguing for the abolition of all intellectual property, and others claiming that mob rule is the basis for democracy. I don't see why the issue is such a binary one. Clearly the patent system needs reform. It's not at all clear that it needs to disappear entirely.

Jach 16y ago

I flagged this since we don't need a new one of these articles every day...

dean 16y ago

It's depressing to see a respected and influential software industry icon resorting to patent trolling like this. I expect it from lawyers and corporate-raider types, but was surprised to see Paul Allen doing it. To cherry pick a quote from Dvorak's article: Paul Allen says he has a patent for a "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information...". On the other hand, corporations love a monopoly, and I guess Paul Allen wants to be involved in another one.

kenjackson 16y ago
How likely is Paul Allen doing this as an attempt to weaken software patents? MS is trying the SCOTUS in an effort to make it more difficult to assert claims. Wonder if this might be part of the same strategic play. Doubtful, I know.
- ergo98 16y ago
  Very unlikely. He targeted everyone but Gates. His attack is legitimate. However Allen can feel just, I guess, given that he has dedicated most his wealth to charity after he dies. So he's essentially playing Robin Hood.

tkeller 16y ago

> Basically, Allen got an omnibus patent that covers all these characteristics No. He didn't. And regardless of whether software patents need to go, ignorant media coverage certainly needs to go.

aristidb 16y ago
Most people, including myself, cannot actually read patents. Being told that the summary is irrelevant does not help at all. What are we supposed to do, ignore the patent because we don't understand it?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- tkeller 16y ago
  Rabble rabble rabble. I hate this attitude: I don't understand software patents, and I'm not going to take the time to learn about them, therefore they need to go.
  - chc 16y ago
    If your post had been informational rather than insulting, he probably would have taken the time to read it and learn.
- HeyLaughingBoy 16y ago
  If you're a programmer, you can read software patents. If you're a mechanical engineer, you can read mechanical patents, If you're a farmer, you can read farming patents. See how that works? The language is dense, and you must read carefully, but the patents I have actually read are not particularly difficult to understand.
  - Jach 16y ago
    > If you're a programmer, you can read software patents. Here I can bring in a different definition of "can". I could if I wanted browse different software patents, but that just puts me or my company in more legal trouble especially if sometime later I happen to develop something similar enough to a patent I've previously read that I get sued over it. It's not a good idea to just read patents blindly if you have any interest in building stuff that might get popular. Though I suppose it's probably safe to read the Linked List patent, which is one of the clearest and silliest I've ever seen: http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.google.com/patents?id=Szh4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...

maeon3 16y ago

Software Patents should be allowed, however the rules on them need to be heavily modified so that the real spirit of the patent can reward resourceful hard working innovators. Patents were meant to protect programmer, however since programmers tend to work for big businesses and the big businesses absorb all the rights to the code, the software patent is only protecting businesses. I propose a change. Software patents should have timeouts that increase and decrease depending on the amount of genuine innovative breakthrough contained in the code. If I make a new website that does something people like that never has been done before, then I get so many cents for anyone else using it for so many weeks (something like this would need to be strictly enforced). Now suppose some programmer created a new bit of software that takes Human DNA as input and outputs a list of instructions on how to reverse aging on that version of the human genome. In this case the software patent would be Longer, with more of a payoff for others who copied it and used it inside the time frame. Software Patenting isn't evil, it was meant to protect US, the programmers, it is just a completely broken system so that it isn't helping at all.

aristidb 16y ago
Maybe they were meant to protect the inventor. But if they cause more harm than benefit, that is no excuse to keep them. Results matter, not intents.
patrickaljord 16y ago
> Software Patenting isn't evil Except that it is.
- sorbus 16y ago
  [Citation needed]

cletus 16y ago

This isn't anything new. Pretty much anyone who knows anything about software is against software patents except for a few with a vested interest. The patent system was originally created to protect investment and foster innovation by providing exclusivity but requiring disclosure to further research by others and of course there is a time limit. The problem is that ideas (which is what software patents and business models come down to) have next to no cost (unlike, say, new drugs that have substantial R&D costs, trials, etc). Lawyers have gotten very good at perverting this system [1]. I remember reading about Intel's system bus (I think in relation to Nvidia producing chipsets without a license). Basically parts of the system were patented, some copyrighted and the rest was a trade secret. Combined it meant Intel basically didn't have to disclose anything but could still go after those who reverse engineer. Once I used to support pharma-patents but I'm changing my mind on even that. I believe the high cost of health care in the US is in large part to the protections and monopolies suppliers have. The counterargument is that many of these things wouldn't exist without these protections but I think the pendulum has swung too far. Something like two-thirds of the budget for a new drug goes on marketing [2]. Worse, we're starting to see copyright trolls [3] who are basically producing reams of crap in the hopes that someone inadvertently infringes on that so they can be sued. So IP is horribly broken, not just for software. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Overlap_with_copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Overlap_with_co... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_marketing [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_troll

EGreg 16y ago
Thank you! I was just writing about this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2039527 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2039527
roadnottaken 16y ago
As a biochemist, I can assure you that if pharma-patents went away, drug-development would disappear overnight. One can argue over the specifics, but some form of IP protection is necessary in that arena.

tgflynn 16y ago

US patent law (as well as copyright law) derives from Article I section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." The question is do patents actually promote the progress of science and technology ? I suspect that they do not because while they create additional monetary incentives to pursue innovation at the same time they restrict the free flow of ideas which is the driving force behind scientific and technical progress. The free exchange and use of information is probably the source of the exponential progress in "information technologies" that Ray Kurzweil has discovered. It seems likely that impediments to the exchange and use of information, such as patents, can only reduce the rate of exponential growth. Perhaps if patents had never existed our technology would be far more advanced than it currently is. If it were ever possible to prove conclusively that patents impede rather than promote progress, they would become unconstitutional in the US.

EGreg 16y ago
Agreed, however there is something to be said about giving incentives to the little guy. Basically what entrepreneurs who are just starting out think NDAs should do, but better. Say you come up with a great new idea in software. And you want to make an agreement with someone to implement this idea. Without patents, they can have "their uncle's company in China" to do the idea (think CrunchPad), rename it to avoid any trademark issues, and screw you. How would you protect against this? This issue faces almost every inventor of an idea, as they will have to make business agreements with someone. Thus, although you would be encouraging free flow of information within the tree, you would be cutting off a large source of it -- individual inventors. Patents won't be going away because it's hard to distinguish between the above example, and a patent troll.
- tgflynn 16y ago
  Yes, I've often heard this argument. Personally, speaking as a "little guy' who is interested in advancing technology and making a good living doing it, I am far more worried that some corporation will be able to claim patent "protection" over my ideas. This seems far more probable to me than the inverse situation of someone else independently discovering my invention and beating me in the market. Also even if that happened I'd much rather compete in the market than in a court room. As for the specific case you mention, I think, especially in software, that it's becoming far easier for an individual inventor to take his invention to market rather than needing to sell it to a large corporation. Also this argument seems largely based on the notion, which I think is most often incorrect, that most value lies in a simple idea rather than in the execution of that idea. In other words that you have some idea that can be stated in a few English sentences that has tremendous value and that no one else has thought of. You only need divulge that idea and anyone on the planet will be able to beat you in the market. Such ideas, if they exist at all, are exceedingly rare, maybe once in a generation occurrences. All recent examples of highly successful innovation: Microsoft, Google, Facebook relied far more on the quality of execution - the construction of solutions from many small ideas - than on one overarching genius discovery. And it is exactly this form of value creation which patents impede.

EGreg 16y ago

Now that's what I'm talking about! Patents were originally intended to encourage investors in a time when bringing a product to market could take years. In the software industry, that assumption is, to put it mildly, totally off. Therefore, in the software industry, granting someone a 17 year monopoly on an idea just encourages another, destructive type of strategy that hurts the entire industry: PATENT TROLLING. Seriously, it is a legal strategy to describe something to the government, wait a few years and then go after the people who actually BUILT IT (even if they came up with it independently, as long as they can't prove they came up with it before you described it in a patent application). That's BULL CRAP. You didn't do anything except write some paper. If you're good at it, you don't even need a lawyer. And you get to collect money from the hard work of others. On the other hand, I feel that if you DID write a patent, AND you tried to make it work, AND you are succeeding, you SHOULD be able to prevent your competitors from just copying what you did. But not for 17 years. For two years at most! It is in this latter sense that the patent system is great. I'd get a provisional patent over an NDA anyday. Because it's more legally enforceable. Say a company meets with me and I tell them the idea. First of all I don't have to require them to sign any NDA. Secondly, suppose they say, "nice idea, we are going to do it ourselves". I can tell them, "I have a provisional patent, and I will sue your ass in 2 years." Or I can tell them NOTHING, go ahead and convert it to a real patent (probably $5k out of my pocket) and go sue them 2 years later. Not 17 years later. This, I don't mind. They wanted to screw me by stealing my idea, they got burned. This will encourage companies to NOT screw individual investors and actually decide if they want to wait 3 years before making this, or work with the inventor. With NDAs, there is no way to prove anything. I spoke to Bobby, and they signed an NDA. Then, Charlie Inc. comes out with my product. I didn't make Charlie, Inc. sign anything, and Bobby doesn't have the $5 million dollars to pay me, and I can't prove he told anything to Charlie, Inc. OOPS. That's what software patents should protect against. That's it. They currently do, but we don't need 17 years of that kind of protection!