3 ms·
> Except patent lawyers and multinationals. That should tell you everything on whether they're a good idea. I know you're implying "no, it's a bad idea". But d
by jacques_chester 7y ago
> Except patent lawyers and multinationals. That should tell you everything on whether they're a good idea.
I know you're implying "no, it's a bad idea". But doesn't the involvement of the individuals who do patent law as their sole job qualify them to know more about it then "almost everyone"?
- deogeo 7y agoIf 'it' is patent law, then yes. If 'it' is software development, then no. Do we want to encourage the development of patent law, or of software?
- jacques_chester 7y agoPatent law is pretty well-developed at this point. And patent lawyers typically have degrees and relevant experience in the field they focus on. So most software patent lawyers know as much about software as you or I do.
- justinclift 7y ago> ... most software patent lawyers know as much about software as you or I do. Please provide evidence.
- jacques_chester 7y agoI've worked with several. Computer science degrees, publications, time working at Microsoft and IBM, etc. All of them were as qualified or more qualified than I am. As it happens one of them left his law firm and founded a software company.
- Supermancho 7y ago> most software patent lawyers know as much about software as you or I do. > I've worked with several To be fair, that's not a compelling answer. Given the outrageous cases that are publicized, I can understand how there is an incentive to NOT know (or act as if) in an exploitative manner. According to a razor, it's less likely that the competence is a standard or relevant.
- jacques_chester 7y agoWhat would make it a compelling answer? I have noted elsewhere that the outrageous examples are publicised because they are outrageous, but that doesn't make them a valid statistical sample of all software patents. Patent lawyers need to understand the material well enough to draft the claims and perform clearance searches. If they can't do that then they are sailing towards failing their fiduciary duty; a lawyer anxious to hold onto their bar membership would refer you to another one with a speciality in the field. If I go to a criminal lawyer and ask for tax help, they will refer me to a tax lawyer. If I go to a chemical engineering patent lawyer to talk about a compression algorithm, they will refer me to a patent lawyer who specialises in software and computing.
- wiggles_md 7y agoPassing the patent bar requires a baseline of technical knowledge. I don’t know that a patent attorney, agent, or examiner knows “as much about software” as you or GP, but it would be wrong to believe they are ignorant on the subject. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTO_registration_examination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPTO_registration_examinati...
- viraptor 7y agoYou can be an expert in anything. Someone being an expert in torture doesn't mean non-experts can't say torture is a bad idea overall. > who do patent law as their sole job Then they have all the incentives to keep patents alive.
- jacques_chester 7y agoAnd as a software engineer I have a strong incentive for copyright to exist. That doesn't disqualify me from holding opinions about it.
- viraptor 7y agoI think it's a bit different. Your job wouldn't disappear if copyright disappeared. You may need to change your approach in business, but on a technical level, things stay almost the same. We were pretty much in that situation in some European countries in early 90s. (at least from enforcement point of view - lots of pirated software sold at marketplaces in the open) People still created software.
- jacques_chester 7y agoIf there was a way to bet on this, I would wager the net present value of my income for the next 30 years on it and expect to double my money.