4 ms·

I don't like software patents but I have a hard time buying that it will limit investment further. It hasn't significantly done so in the US where software pate

by tssva 6y ago

I don't like software patents but I have a hard time buying that it will limit investment further. It hasn't significantly done so in the US where software patents have long existed. I imagine it may spur investment because investors see software patents as protecting their investments in startups from both other startups and established companies. Edited to correct a typo kindly pointed out by a comment below.

nxpnsv 6y ago
As a coder with kids, am I a software parent?
- KingOfCoders 6y ago
  The OP said "kindly" and you got downvoted for a joke #HN2020 Sorry could you only vote up once.
regularfry 6y ago
Or has it? How would we know? In particular, if we think conceptually software patents could be a good thing, why do we think the current length of patent protection is appropriate?
fluffernutter 6y ago
Patents are really the stupidest things ever. The idea that something or an idea can be limited to a particular chain of causality is irrational. The only reason someone likes the idea of saying only one chain of causality should exist for an idea or, better put an idea that makes money, is because they themselves like money or think they can gain access to that money. Even the Cornoavirus has been shown to innovate, through mutation, by changing itself. It is not a single change, either. Many, many viruses change themselves to a new same same configuration over time. Now some may not, but some definitely do, which means that change is available to all. Just because someone is able to get resources to patent an idea is not a good reason to allow them "protection" over another who did not have the resources, but still arrived intellectually at the same conclusion. Are we to say all things we do are protected if they bring value? What about all the things we do not do that bring value? Will those be protected next? If I had resources to spend on a thing, it would be to invent a space drive to get the fuck off this planet and away from all the greedy people.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. An invention is there implementation of an idea. They also require the submission of a workable embodiment in order to be granted. USA does blur the lines with its broad software patents and business method patents. But we in Europe have software patents to, they're just for inventions, not ideas. This post is my personal opinion and does not relate to my employment.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    The implementation of an idea is a specific physical machine (not class of machines) or an active production process. The moment you start talking about how similar one machine or process is to some other machine or process (the core of any patent infringement case) you're back in the realm of ideas. It's the idea of an implementation that is patented, not the implementation of an idea. This is particularly obvious when it comes to software patents as the entire process being patented concerns the manipulation of abstract information, which places even the implementation of the idea squarely in the realm of ideas. Even if that patent office requires the software to be "embodied" in some general-purpose computer before granting the patent, the patent covers the abstract data-manipulation algorithms even when they are reimplemented in different software running on a completely different kind of computer—which puts the lie to the idea that this "embodiment" has any relevance at all to the patent.
  - CamperBob2 6y ago
    FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. A true but useless statement. An idea is not patentable. An idea implemented in a computer program is.
    - zoobab 6y ago
      "An idea implemented in a computer program is." Not according to EPC art52.2 (in Europe). And not according to Alice jurisprudence (in the US). But the patent lobby, including the patent offices, are at work trying to destroy those.
jaggirs 6y ago
I think patents (and especially software patents) cause more problems than they are worth. The most valuable asset in an economy is entrepreneurship and creativity, which often comes in the form of an individual making something amazing in his 'garage'. Patents do not help the lone genious in any shape or form, in fact it is already a very bad idea to worry about patenting your idea early on, because the effort and money it will take to do so will detract from the invention itself. For the lone inventor, this means he essentially just has to take a gamble and hope no one has patented his idea. And if someone sues him, he is done, his invention gone with him (which was valuable even if it already existed). Patents do somewhat work in the 'corporate' world, where potential inventions require a quantifiable capital investment that would obviously not be worth it in the absence of patent law (like antibiotics). But even then, companies often choose to keep the invention a secret if possible. Software, generally is not like that, capital investment required is only quantifiable for 'big' applications, that do not require much creativity but simply a lot of work to create. And these applications are actually not the sort of thing that is patentable. I think the reason patents are generally accepted is the 'righteus' notion that if someone invents something, he owns it and it cannot be stolen from him. But this notion is achterhaald, what if two people invent something at the same time? What someone invented the same thing a few years later, but actually succeeds in bringing it to market, unlike the first inventor?
searchableguy 6y ago
Patents in other industries negatively affected innovation for decades. 3d printers are a prime example where recently expired patents resulted in real progress. Those patents will affect open source which no other industry has adopted to the extent software has. Even hardware is being open sourced now as a cultural influence. Can you point me to any other industry where small teams or individuals can build and learn the same cutting edge tech used at big companies without a big fat license and accepting legal jargon? Is lack of that a bad thing for the society as a whole? No idea is in isolation so it doesn't make sense to give exclusive rights to a single entity. Do you wanna fight Oracle? Of course, you do just like Google. Current situation won't give you the real picture of the impact because many companies choose not to patent software when they can. Investors can also see lack of patents as reduced barrier to entering the market and diversify more.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  It is interesting that consumer 3D printers boomed after the major foundational patents died, but it might be an accident of history as well, because low cost manufacturing and low cost computation helped make 3D printers affordable for consumers. 3D printers were used by industry for many years prior to the expiration, esp. in aerospace and the military.
- srean 6y ago
  Codecs and compression are another biggie. Much code gets rewritten to work around scorched earth.
CamperBob2 6y ago
It hasn't significantly done so in the US where software patents have long existed. Speaking as someone who has worked in fields related to data compression and audio/video codecs, you can't imagine how wrong you are about this. Entire fields of research have been blocked off from the point of view of commercial developers and researchers. Nobody would touch arithmetic encoding with the proverbial ten-foot pole until IBM's fundamental patent expired, for instance.[1] Never mind LZW derivatives. It's outrageous that patents on fundamental algorithms were ever allowed. Germans need to do what they can to stop it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding#History_and_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding#History_and_...
imtringued 6y ago
There are two types of innovation. Corporate innovation and voluntary innovation. Both types of innovation are important but corporate innovation can only exist if there is some sort of intellectual property system. The IP system doesn't create innovation on its own, the potential for innovation has to already exist and the IP system is merely enabling it. Therefore when you are introducing an IP system you are making a trade off between the two types. If you have no IP system then you are too dependent on people innovating for the sake of innovation because they enjoy it. If you have an extreme IP system then you are too dependent on corporations innovating for the sake of profit maximization. Both extremes limit overall innovation. There is a sweet spot in the middle where you both maximize corporate and voluntary innovation. The current copyright system is the closest to that sweet spot but it's leaning closer to corporate than voluntary because of its long duration. The current IP protection is good for both corporations and the open source/FOSS community. There is an opportunity to commercialize opensource software and make it easier to sponsor the developers but if the current system was kept until the end of humanity we wouldn't miss out on too much innovation. But this article isn't about keeping what we have. Software is about to receive an additional IP system. One that is completely inaccessible to voluntary innovation. We are bound to leave the sweet spot at this rate and prioritize corporate innovation above everything else, even if it means there will be less innovation overall.

by tssva 6y ago

nxpnsv 6y ago

As a coder with kids, am I a software parent?

KingOfCoders 6y ago
The OP said "kindly" and you got downvoted for a joke #HN2020 Sorry could you only vote up once.

regularfry 6y ago

Or has it? How would we know? In particular, if we think conceptually software patents could be a good thing, why do we think the current length of patent protection is appropriate?

fluffernutter 6y ago

Patents are really the stupidest things ever. The idea that something or an idea can be limited to a particular chain of causality is irrational. The only reason someone likes the idea of saying only one chain of causality should exist for an idea or, better put an idea that makes money, is because they themselves like money or think they can gain access to that money. Even the Cornoavirus has been shown to innovate, through mutation, by changing itself. It is not a single change, either. Many, many viruses change themselves to a new same same configuration over time. Now some may not, but some definitely do, which means that change is available to all. Just because someone is able to get resources to patent an idea is not a good reason to allow them "protection" over another who did not have the resources, but still arrived intellectually at the same conclusion. Are we to say all things we do are protected if they bring value? What about all the things we do not do that bring value? Will those be protected next? If I had resources to spend on a thing, it would be to invent a space drive to get the fuck off this planet and away from all the greedy people.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. An invention is there implementation of an idea. They also require the submission of a workable embodiment in order to be granted. USA does blur the lines with its broad software patents and business method patents. But we in Europe have software patents to, they're just for inventions, not ideas. This post is my personal opinion and does not relate to my employment.
- nybble41 6y ago
  The implementation of an idea is a specific physical machine (not class of machines) or an active production process. The moment you start talking about how similar one machine or process is to some other machine or process (the core of any patent infringement case) you're back in the realm of ideas. It's the idea of an implementation that is patented, not the implementation of an idea. This is particularly obvious when it comes to software patents as the entire process being patented concerns the manipulation of abstract information, which places even the implementation of the idea squarely in the realm of ideas. Even if that patent office requires the software to be "embodied" in some general-purpose computer before granting the patent, the patent covers the abstract data-manipulation algorithms even when they are reimplemented in different software running on a completely different kind of computer—which puts the lie to the idea that this "embodiment" has any relevance at all to the patent.
- CamperBob2 6y ago
  FWIW patents cover inventions, not ideas. A true but useless statement. An idea is not patentable. An idea implemented in a computer program is.
  - zoobab 6y ago
    "An idea implemented in a computer program is." Not according to EPC art52.2 (in Europe). And not according to Alice jurisprudence (in the US). But the patent lobby, including the patent offices, are at work trying to destroy those.

jaggirs 6y ago

I think patents (and especially software patents) cause more problems than they are worth. The most valuable asset in an economy is entrepreneurship and creativity, which often comes in the form of an individual making something amazing in his 'garage'. Patents do not help the lone genious in any shape or form, in fact it is already a very bad idea to worry about patenting your idea early on, because the effort and money it will take to do so will detract from the invention itself. For the lone inventor, this means he essentially just has to take a gamble and hope no one has patented his idea. And if someone sues him, he is done, his invention gone with him (which was valuable even if it already existed). Patents do somewhat work in the 'corporate' world, where potential inventions require a quantifiable capital investment that would obviously not be worth it in the absence of patent law (like antibiotics). But even then, companies often choose to keep the invention a secret if possible. Software, generally is not like that, capital investment required is only quantifiable for 'big' applications, that do not require much creativity but simply a lot of work to create. And these applications are actually not the sort of thing that is patentable. I think the reason patents are generally accepted is the 'righteus' notion that if someone invents something, he owns it and it cannot be stolen from him. But this notion is achterhaald, what if two people invent something at the same time? What someone invented the same thing a few years later, but actually succeeds in bringing it to market, unlike the first inventor?

searchableguy 6y ago

Patents in other industries negatively affected innovation for decades. 3d printers are a prime example where recently expired patents resulted in real progress. Those patents will affect open source which no other industry has adopted to the extent software has. Even hardware is being open sourced now as a cultural influence. Can you point me to any other industry where small teams or individuals can build and learn the same cutting edge tech used at big companies without a big fat license and accepting legal jargon? Is lack of that a bad thing for the society as a whole? No idea is in isolation so it doesn't make sense to give exclusive rights to a single entity. Do you wanna fight Oracle? Of course, you do just like Google. Current situation won't give you the real picture of the impact because many companies choose not to patent software when they can. Investors can also see lack of patents as reduced barrier to entering the market and diversify more.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
It is interesting that consumer 3D printers boomed after the major foundational patents died, but it might be an accident of history as well, because low cost manufacturing and low cost computation helped make 3D printers affordable for consumers. 3D printers were used by industry for many years prior to the expiration, esp. in aerospace and the military.
srean 6y ago
Codecs and compression are another biggie. Much code gets rewritten to work around scorched earth.

CamperBob2 6y ago

It hasn't significantly done so in the US where software patents have long existed. Speaking as someone who has worked in fields related to data compression and audio/video codecs, you can't imagine how wrong you are about this. Entire fields of research have been blocked off from the point of view of commercial developers and researchers. Nobody would touch arithmetic encoding with the proverbial ten-foot pole until IBM's fundamental patent expired, for instance.[1] Never mind LZW derivatives. It's outrageous that patents on fundamental algorithms were ever allowed. Germans need to do what they can to stop it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding#History_and_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding#History_and_...

imtringued 6y ago

There are two types of innovation. Corporate innovation and voluntary innovation. Both types of innovation are important but corporate innovation can only exist if there is some sort of intellectual property system. The IP system doesn't create innovation on its own, the potential for innovation has to already exist and the IP system is merely enabling it. Therefore when you are introducing an IP system you are making a trade off between the two types. If you have no IP system then you are too dependent on people innovating for the sake of innovation because they enjoy it. If you have an extreme IP system then you are too dependent on corporations innovating for the sake of profit maximization. Both extremes limit overall innovation. There is a sweet spot in the middle where you both maximize corporate and voluntary innovation. The current copyright system is the closest to that sweet spot but it's leaning closer to corporate than voluntary because of its long duration. The current IP protection is good for both corporations and the open source/FOSS community. There is an opportunity to commercialize opensource software and make it easier to sponsor the developers but if the current system was kept until the end of humanity we wouldn't miss out on too much innovation. But this article isn't about keeping what we have. Software is about to receive an additional IP system. One that is completely inaccessible to voluntary innovation. We are bound to leave the sweet spot at this rate and prioritize corporate innovation above everything else, even if it means there will be less innovation overall.