4 ms·

I think it is working exactly as intended. The point of the USPTO is to provide a mechanism for carving up the universe of ideas into plots of land where owners

I think it is working exactly as intended. The point of the USPTO is to provide a mechanism for carving up the universe of ideas into plots of land where ownership is clear and backed up by the force of the state. You can charge rent on it, you can develop it yourself, you can leave it idle, it’s yours. Software innovators are a bit like wholesome farmers who just want to labor in the fields, beat the elements and grow good crops to feed the people for a decent profit. That’s nice, but in a country without property law big mean farming operations with security staff will just come and park themselves where you were farming. The problem I believe, is that software innovators are taught not to worry about patents. Perhaps this attitude helps the VC shops who are experts at it, and it gives them an information advantage. I don’t know who feeds the myth. In a right-thinking world, we would look at this situation and say Airbnb just started farming on land that was unclearly owned. This is the natural consequence.

choward 7y ago
Your analogy makes no sense. Land is a scarce and finite resource. Land ownership is a zero sum game. Patents are arbitrary and there can be an infinite number of them. You don't need patents to build software but you need land for crops.
- freejazz 7y ago
  It's not a "perfect" analogy, but what ever are? The patent is the land, not the crop. The products that can be produced with the patent are the crops, with which it is impossible to have without the patent. Think of it this way, you spend years cracking a new invention. You bring it to market. You immediately go out of business because a larger company takes your invention and sells it at half the price you can because they don't need to recoup your R&D costs. Without patents you cannot protect against this circumstance. Trade secrets don't protect against this because trade secrets don't protect against reverse-engineering whereas patents do. Patents are a temporary monopoly. Trade secrets can last indefinitely. Patents have a relatively short lifetime, though people do argue one still too-long for software.
  - Viliam1234 7y ago
    Another possible scenario: You spend years cracking a new invention. A company you are currently working for files a patent, and then fires you. You are no longer allowed to use the knowledge that is in your head. I think this scenario is more realistic.
    - freejazz 7y ago
      In this scenario, if they actually stole your invention without a valid IP assignment clause in your work agreement/contract, then the law absolutely provides a way for you to make this claim and enforce it via a court of law. Without the patent system, how exactly do you think the inventor would fare here?
jjoonathan 7y ago
> in a country without property law big mean farming operations with security staff will just come and park themselves where you were farming. That's exactly what is happening in a country that does have the corresponding IP law and the IP law is enabling the practice rather than fighting it. In other news: war is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery. Carry on!
- riazrizvi 7y ago
  When property laws were introduced to the US, parties with an information advantage were able to exploit loopholes, trick ignorant people into signing agreements that they didn’t understand etc. Lots of people fell foul to the new system and I’m sure it was written initially to favor certain parties. But it’s better than no ownership framework. The thing to do now is understand it.
  - jjoonathan 7y ago
    > But it’s better than no ownership framework. That hardly follows. "IP" has very different properties than land, and "no ownership framework" is hardly the only alternative under consideration. Even to the extent that land ownership and idea ownership can be analogized, using the former to justify the later is a poor argument on account of the enormous known systematic problems with the former. In particular, there's a reason why economists borrowed the term "rent" to mean "benefit received for non-produced input." > The thing to do now is understand it. That doesn't justify anything either. Did organized crime just take over your neighborhood? Understanding their priorities will help you deal with the problem, but it doesn't make them good and it doesn't make them worth protecting.
- freejazz 7y ago
  Right - because on places like here people are convinced that strong inventor's patent rights are BAD overall. That's how big corporations take up all the IP while simultaneously using it to strangle smaller players. With stronger IP regime, an inventor could get an injunction over an infringer - now they can't. Read about efficient infringement.
ergothus 7y ago
> The point of the USPTO is to provide a mechanism for carving up the universe of ideas into plots of land where ownership is clear and backed up by the force of the state. You can charge rent on it, you can develop it yourself, you can leave it idle, it’s yours. The point of patent laws is to encourage the spread of knowledge. To put it another way, it's NOT yours, but we'll let you act like it for a bit in order to make sure the knowledge gets out. If we've created a situation where the "land of ideas" is remaining fallow, then the process isn't working as intended. > The problem I believe, is that software innovators are taught not to worry about patents Who's the innovator? What side of the worry? The software companies I've been in have been all about MAKING patents. Teaching special classes, polling workers to see if they've done anything patentable. Worrying about violating patents is a different story. Meanwhile, as an individual coder doing anything outside a corporate market, the message is that it's too expensive and difficult to "worry" about violating them.
- riazrizvi 7y ago
  > If we've created a situation where the "land of ideas" is remaining fallow, then the process isn't working as intended. I think you mean, ‘has fallow spots’. It seems to me that writing law is similar to building software systems; you always want a perfectly effective and economical system but you never have that ideal. So good engineers don’t stand up and say this system isn’t perfect, it’s obvious. What’s the proposed improvement? That is interesting.

choward 7y ago

Your analogy makes no sense. Land is a scarce and finite resource. Land ownership is a zero sum game. Patents are arbitrary and there can be an infinite number of them. You don't need patents to build software but you need land for crops.

freejazz 7y ago
It's not a "perfect" analogy, but what ever are? The patent is the land, not the crop. The products that can be produced with the patent are the crops, with which it is impossible to have without the patent. Think of it this way, you spend years cracking a new invention. You bring it to market. You immediately go out of business because a larger company takes your invention and sells it at half the price you can because they don't need to recoup your R&D costs. Without patents you cannot protect against this circumstance. Trade secrets don't protect against this because trade secrets don't protect against reverse-engineering whereas patents do. Patents are a temporary monopoly. Trade secrets can last indefinitely. Patents have a relatively short lifetime, though people do argue one still too-long for software.
- Viliam1234 7y ago
  Another possible scenario: You spend years cracking a new invention. A company you are currently working for files a patent, and then fires you. You are no longer allowed to use the knowledge that is in your head. I think this scenario is more realistic.
  - freejazz 7y ago
    In this scenario, if they actually stole your invention without a valid IP assignment clause in your work agreement/contract, then the law absolutely provides a way for you to make this claim and enforce it via a court of law. Without the patent system, how exactly do you think the inventor would fare here?

jjoonathan 7y ago

> in a country without property law big mean farming operations with security staff will just come and park themselves where you were farming. That's exactly what is happening in a country that does have the corresponding IP law and the IP law is enabling the practice rather than fighting it. In other news: war is peace, ignorance is strength, and freedom is slavery. Carry on!

riazrizvi 7y ago
When property laws were introduced to the US, parties with an information advantage were able to exploit loopholes, trick ignorant people into signing agreements that they didn’t understand etc. Lots of people fell foul to the new system and I’m sure it was written initially to favor certain parties. But it’s better than no ownership framework. The thing to do now is understand it.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  > But it’s better than no ownership framework. That hardly follows. "IP" has very different properties than land, and "no ownership framework" is hardly the only alternative under consideration. Even to the extent that land ownership and idea ownership can be analogized, using the former to justify the later is a poor argument on account of the enormous known systematic problems with the former. In particular, there's a reason why economists borrowed the term "rent" to mean "benefit received for non-produced input." > The thing to do now is understand it. That doesn't justify anything either. Did organized crime just take over your neighborhood? Understanding their priorities will help you deal with the problem, but it doesn't make them good and it doesn't make them worth protecting.
freejazz 7y ago
Right - because on places like here people are convinced that strong inventor's patent rights are BAD overall. That's how big corporations take up all the IP while simultaneously using it to strangle smaller players. With stronger IP regime, an inventor could get an injunction over an infringer - now they can't. Read about efficient infringement.

ergothus 7y ago

> The point of the USPTO is to provide a mechanism for carving up the universe of ideas into plots of land where ownership is clear and backed up by the force of the state. You can charge rent on it, you can develop it yourself, you can leave it idle, it’s yours. The point of patent laws is to encourage the spread of knowledge. To put it another way, it's NOT yours, but we'll let you act like it for a bit in order to make sure the knowledge gets out. If we've created a situation where the "land of ideas" is remaining fallow, then the process isn't working as intended. > The problem I believe, is that software innovators are taught not to worry about patents Who's the innovator? What side of the worry? The software companies I've been in have been all about MAKING patents. Teaching special classes, polling workers to see if they've done anything patentable. Worrying about violating patents is a different story. Meanwhile, as an individual coder doing anything outside a corporate market, the message is that it's too expensive and difficult to "worry" about violating them.

riazrizvi 7y ago
> If we've created a situation where the "land of ideas" is remaining fallow, then the process isn't working as intended. I think you mean, ‘has fallow spots’. It seems to me that writing law is similar to building software systems; you always want a perfectly effective and economical system but you never have that ideal. So good engineers don’t stand up and say this system isn’t perfect, it’s obvious. What’s the proposed improvement? That is interesting.