7 ms·

If you can't fight 'em, sue 'em. When will the software patent insanity end?

by megamark16 16y ago

marshray 16y ago
When it's someone other than lawyers writing the law.
- podperson 16y ago
  I think if we have someone other than lawyers writing laws things will get worse, not better. The patent system has serious problems, so does Microsoft Windows. Do you think Windows would be better if it weren't developed by software engineers? http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
  - marshray 16y ago
    I think the patent system would be better if it didn't exist. This has nothing to do with Microsoft Windows.
    - podperson 16y ago
      I'm kind of bummed that someone who can't comprehend my post got upvoted way more than I did. It's hard to guess what the world would be like with no patents, but I suspect at minimum you'd see a lot of obfuscation, such as drugs with impossible to identify active ingredients and devices designed to be impossible to figure out or repair.
  - joebadmo 16y ago
    Your analogy doesn't really hold, because software engineers probably use the software they create, so they have an incentive to make it good. Lawyers have an incentive to make laws such that you need more lawyers, which the patent system succeeds at marvellously. That's not to say that there's really an alternative, just pointing out the perverse incentive structure.
    - woodson 16y ago
      Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Equally, one could make the case that software engineers have an incentive to make bad/incomplete/burdensome software so that they are still needed to provide fixes/updates. Lawyers also "use" the law, it still applies to them. The patent situation won't change, as the players involved are too keen of their portfolios.
      - joebadmo 16y ago
        I think the perverse incentive you point to wrt software is a real one. I think that's why the tools that engineers use are usually the best pieces of software. I don't think patent lawyers are generally have to use patent law in the same way that software engineers have to use software.
        marshray 16y ago
        Of course they don't allow the patenting of processes essential to patent lawyering so the analogy doesn't hold. But my point was that the patent system really is "used" by lawyers and they do, in fact, optimize it for their purposes (e.g., extracting wealth from others who actually produce things of value).
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        joebadmo 16y ago
        Right, but isn't that almost diametrically opposed to what the patent system is supposed to do? It's supposed to encourage innovation, but extracting maximum wealth from the process seems like it would be detrimental. Patent lawyers don't use the patent system, they misuse it.

If you can't fight 'em, sue 'em. When will the software patent insanity end?

marshray 16y ago

When it's someone other than lawyers writing the law.

podperson 16y ago
I think if we have someone other than lawyers writing laws things will get worse, not better. The patent system has serious problems, so does Microsoft Windows. Do you think Windows would be better if it weren't developed by software engineers? http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
- marshray 16y ago
  I think the patent system would be better if it didn't exist. This has nothing to do with Microsoft Windows.
  - podperson 16y ago
    I'm kind of bummed that someone who can't comprehend my post got upvoted way more than I did. It's hard to guess what the world would be like with no patents, but I suspect at minimum you'd see a lot of obfuscation, such as drugs with impossible to identify active ingredients and devices designed to be impossible to figure out or repair.
- joebadmo 16y ago
  Your analogy doesn't really hold, because software engineers probably use the software they create, so they have an incentive to make it good. Lawyers have an incentive to make laws such that you need more lawyers, which the patent system succeeds at marvellously. That's not to say that there's really an alternative, just pointing out the perverse incentive structure.
  - woodson 16y ago
    Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Equally, one could make the case that software engineers have an incentive to make bad/incomplete/burdensome software so that they are still needed to provide fixes/updates. Lawyers also "use" the law, it still applies to them. The patent situation won't change, as the players involved are too keen of their portfolios.
    - joebadmo 16y ago
      I think the perverse incentive you point to wrt software is a real one. I think that's why the tools that engineers use are usually the best pieces of software. I don't think patent lawyers are generally have to use patent law in the same way that software engineers have to use software.
      - marshray 16y ago
        Of course they don't allow the patenting of processes essential to patent lawyering so the analogy doesn't hold. But my point was that the patent system really is "used" by lawyers and they do, in fact, optimize it for their purposes (e.g., extracting wealth from others who actually produce things of value).
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        joebadmo 16y ago
        Right, but isn't that almost diametrically opposed to what the patent system is supposed to do? It's supposed to encourage innovation, but extracting maximum wealth from the process seems like it would be detrimental. Patent lawyers don't use the patent system, they misuse it.