4 ms·

Ultimately any physical interaction can be abstracted into math - ultimately, in precisely the same way as software being executed by a computing system. I keep

by bfe 15y ago

Ultimately any physical interaction can be abstracted into math - ultimately, in precisely the same way as software being executed by a computing system. I keep coming back to a recognition of every argument against software patents ultimately reducing to an argument against the concept of patents in general.

azakai 15y ago
> Ultimately any physical interaction can be abstracted into math - ultimately, in precisely the same way as software being executed by a computing system. I agree on this point. > I keep coming back to a recognition of every argument against software patents ultimately reducing to an argument against the concept of patents in general. But I completely disagree on this one. I think the 'software is math' argument is not convincing against patents (and I have a background in mathematics, so you would think I would like such an argument ;). But there are plenty of other excellent arguments against software patents in particular, that are not valid against other kinds of patents. Patents make sense when progress is fairly slow, people read patents, and patents are granted for actual innovation. Then you do want to award a patent for the rare actual invention - it helps speed progress!. These 3 conditions used to be true, more or less, for patents in general. But today none of them are true for software patents: 1. Progress is ridiculously fast. The entire industry changes in just a few years. And patents last for decades! 2. Software engineers do not read patents. Both because there is no actual benefit to doing so, and because legal counsel always says "do not read patents." 3. A huge amount of patents are granted every year, and the quality is very low. We constantly hear about ridiculous patents being granted and enforced. (And yes, I know that headlines and Slashdot summaries are misleading - you need to read the claims. But even when you do read those claims, in most cases the ridiculous patents are still ridiculous.) So I am against software patents, as they are harmful to the industry in their current form. That is more than enough of a reason, regardless of whether software is math or not (it is). Whereas, patents in general may still be useful in other fields, and my arguments against software patents are not relevant to them.
- bfe 15y ago
  You've articulated this position about as well as I've seen it put. I'm far from an unbiased party on these issues. I've been thinking a lot on how they should be analyzed. There certainly have been quality issues, and it's vital that patents serve their intended purpose of nurturing and protecting innovation.

by bfe 15y ago

azakai 15y ago

> Ultimately any physical interaction can be abstracted into math - ultimately, in precisely the same way as software being executed by a computing system. I agree on this point. > I keep coming back to a recognition of every argument against software patents ultimately reducing to an argument against the concept of patents in general. But I completely disagree on this one. I think the 'software is math' argument is not convincing against patents (and I have a background in mathematics, so you would think I would like such an argument ;). But there are plenty of other excellent arguments against software patents in particular, that are not valid against other kinds of patents. Patents make sense when progress is fairly slow, people read patents, and patents are granted for actual innovation. Then you do want to award a patent for the rare actual invention - it helps speed progress!. These 3 conditions used to be true, more or less, for patents in general. But today none of them are true for software patents: 1. Progress is ridiculously fast. The entire industry changes in just a few years. And patents last for decades! 2. Software engineers do not read patents. Both because there is no actual benefit to doing so, and because legal counsel always says "do not read patents." 3. A huge amount of patents are granted every year, and the quality is very low. We constantly hear about ridiculous patents being granted and enforced. (And yes, I know that headlines and Slashdot summaries are misleading - you need to read the claims. But even when you do read those claims, in most cases the ridiculous patents are still ridiculous.) So I am against software patents, as they are harmful to the industry in their current form. That is more than enough of a reason, regardless of whether software is math or not (it is). Whereas, patents in general may still be useful in other fields, and my arguments against software patents are not relevant to them.

bfe 15y ago
You've articulated this position about as well as I've seen it put. I'm far from an unbiased party on these issues. I've been thinking a lot on how they should be analyzed. There certainly have been quality issues, and it's vital that patents serve their intended purpose of nurturing and protecting innovation.