4 ms·

If software patents stop being valid, companies will keep many of their inventions secret and will protect them as "trade secret" from now on. With patents they

by mojuba 18y ago

If software patents stop being valid, companies will keep many of their inventions secret and will protect them as "trade secret" from now on. With patents they were at least forced to publish them. Not good either way, although certainly this will put an end to portfolio-only kind of businesses that did only harm and nothing but harm to everybody.

dmm 18y ago
Absolutely, the original justification of the patent system was to get inventers to make their inventions public. However, the inventions which have been patented recently are often obvious and trivial. Amazon's one-click patent is not some amazing secret that we have been let in on by the patent system.
eugenejen 18y ago
I never thought about that company may put software under trade secret. Then the consequence may be different from what patent reformers expected. And you are right that in that case, the patent filing may decrease. And I am wonder what this mean to innovators that is not affiliate with companies.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
If software patents stop being valid, companies will keep many of their inventions secret... As compared to the situation today, where Google's patents allow them to be completely open about how their systems work, and we all get to read the source code to Microsoft's software because it's protected by patent? Companies already keep their nontrivial inventions as secret as they can, because they know that the patent system is useless for its (supposed) intended purpose. [1] The system moves at a glacial pace relative to the industry, it costs too much to use, its results are unpredictable to the point of randomness, it's filled with reams and reams of invalid chaff, and frankly software itself is too abstract, mutable, and easily copied to be reliably protected by patent. There's a good reason why the inventors of patents didn't let people patent written works. Those folks weren't dummies. No, software patents are a tool for trolls, nothing more. Every invalidated software patent is a victory for mankind. [1] If, OTOH, you believe that the intended purpose of software patents was to allow deep-pocketed corporations to patent-troll their smaller competitors to death... the system is working precisely as designed.
- wmf 18y ago
  Hey now, don't be so cynical. Software patents also allow startups (composed entirely of lawyers) to patent-troll large corporations.
  - mechanical_fish 18y ago
    Hee hee. Of course, to a large corporation such mosquitoes don't matter much. Most patent-troll companies can be paid to go away -- that is, in fact, their entire business model. And giant corporations get a relatively good deal in those negotiations, because they've got the money for a defense and their own giant collection of dubious patents to deploy in countersuits. It's a cost of doing business. Microsoft has to pay their legal department anyway, because even without software patents I'm sure that the company is sued dozens of times a day. It's true that, once in a blue moon, a software-patent holder will have a good enough case, and a stubborn enough attitude, to at least appear to seriously threaten the interests of a large company. But I think it's pretty rare. And appearances can be deceiving when parties are arguing over money -- bluff and bluster are important legal tactics.
- miked 18y ago
  >>No, software patents are a tool for trolls, nothing more. Every invalidated software patent is a victory for mankind. This is much too strong, I think. I'm a co-founder of a small biotech startup with a single patent to its name. We had trouble enough raising money even with the patent. Do you think that I, or anyone else, would have put up with all the pain and the long hours in the lab if we new that Agilent or Biorad could swoop in at any moment and take our markets away from us using their marketing clout? >> If, OTOH, you believe that the intended purpose of software patents was to allow deep-pocketed corporations to patent-troll their smaller competitors to death... the system is working precisely as designed. Sometimes, no doubt. But Borland and that small storage company both cleaned Microsoft out for over $100,000,000 apiece, and MSFT's market cap is a bit larger. A patent is a limited term legal monopoly which effectively creates a legal partnership between a government and, say, a three person startup on the one hand and, oh, Google on the other. Without the patent it's you and your buddies against Larry and Sergey and you're just bringing a knife to a gunfight. Since this site is largely devoted to startups, this would seem to be an important point. I think the real solution is to shorten the terms of software patents to, say, 7 years and tighten up the meaning of "obvious to one schooled in the art". That would immediately reduce the patent infringement search space while still giving a small company time to build a first-mover market advantage.
brlewis 18y ago
Ever heard of a software patent that actually advanced the art by being published, when the technique otherwise would be unknown? I've never heard of this happening. See my poll: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=253318 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=253318
- mojuba 18y ago
  In some cases openness might allow you to exploit the invention, especially when a patent affects you directly. If you are a webmaster then Google's PR patent does, for example. In the world without software patents, there's no way of knowing how it works, neither exploiting it. Although of course there's the advantage of using independently made similar inventions without fear.
  - brlewis 18y ago
    Are you saying that in a world without software patents Page and Brin would never have turned in their thesis?
    - anamax 18y ago
      They didn't turn in their thesis.
      - anewaccountname 18y ago
        He didn't say they did.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
paul 18y ago
Patents are unreadable anyway, and in fact reading them is legally dangerous because then you may be knowingly infringing, which triggers triple damages, as I recall. The latest style is to use a mix of patents and trade secrets anyway, meaning that even if you wasted your time reading patents, you still wouldn't have the full picture.

by mojuba 18y ago

dmm 18y ago

Absolutely, the original justification of the patent system was to get inventers to make their inventions public. However, the inventions which have been patented recently are often obvious and trivial. Amazon's one-click patent is not some amazing secret that we have been let in on by the patent system.

eugenejen 18y ago

I never thought about that company may put software under trade secret. Then the consequence may be different from what patent reformers expected. And you are right that in that case, the patent filing may decrease. And I am wonder what this mean to innovators that is not affiliate with companies.

mechanical_fish 18y ago

If software patents stop being valid, companies will keep many of their inventions secret... As compared to the situation today, where Google's patents allow them to be completely open about how their systems work, and we all get to read the source code to Microsoft's software because it's protected by patent? Companies already keep their nontrivial inventions as secret as they can, because they know that the patent system is useless for its (supposed) intended purpose. [1] The system moves at a glacial pace relative to the industry, it costs too much to use, its results are unpredictable to the point of randomness, it's filled with reams and reams of invalid chaff, and frankly software itself is too abstract, mutable, and easily copied to be reliably protected by patent. There's a good reason why the inventors of patents didn't let people patent written works. Those folks weren't dummies. No, software patents are a tool for trolls, nothing more. Every invalidated software patent is a victory for mankind. [1] If, OTOH, you believe that the intended purpose of software patents was to allow deep-pocketed corporations to patent-troll their smaller competitors to death... the system is working precisely as designed.

wmf 18y ago
Hey now, don't be so cynical. Software patents also allow startups (composed entirely of lawyers) to patent-troll large corporations.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  Hee hee. Of course, to a large corporation such mosquitoes don't matter much. Most patent-troll companies can be paid to go away -- that is, in fact, their entire business model. And giant corporations get a relatively good deal in those negotiations, because they've got the money for a defense and their own giant collection of dubious patents to deploy in countersuits. It's a cost of doing business. Microsoft has to pay their legal department anyway, because even without software patents I'm sure that the company is sued dozens of times a day. It's true that, once in a blue moon, a software-patent holder will have a good enough case, and a stubborn enough attitude, to at least appear to seriously threaten the interests of a large company. But I think it's pretty rare. And appearances can be deceiving when parties are arguing over money -- bluff and bluster are important legal tactics.
miked 18y ago
>>No, software patents are a tool for trolls, nothing more. Every invalidated software patent is a victory for mankind. This is much too strong, I think. I'm a co-founder of a small biotech startup with a single patent to its name. We had trouble enough raising money even with the patent. Do you think that I, or anyone else, would have put up with all the pain and the long hours in the lab if we new that Agilent or Biorad could swoop in at any moment and take our markets away from us using their marketing clout? >> If, OTOH, you believe that the intended purpose of software patents was to allow deep-pocketed corporations to patent-troll their smaller competitors to death... the system is working precisely as designed. Sometimes, no doubt. But Borland and that small storage company both cleaned Microsoft out for over $100,000,000 apiece, and MSFT's market cap is a bit larger. A patent is a limited term legal monopoly which effectively creates a legal partnership between a government and, say, a three person startup on the one hand and, oh, Google on the other. Without the patent it's you and your buddies against Larry and Sergey and you're just bringing a knife to a gunfight. Since this site is largely devoted to startups, this would seem to be an important point. I think the real solution is to shorten the terms of software patents to, say, 7 years and tighten up the meaning of "obvious to one schooled in the art". That would immediately reduce the patent infringement search space while still giving a small company time to build a first-mover market advantage.

brlewis 18y ago

Ever heard of a software patent that actually advanced the art by being published, when the technique otherwise would be unknown? I've never heard of this happening. See my poll: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=253318 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=253318

mojuba 18y ago
In some cases openness might allow you to exploit the invention, especially when a patent affects you directly. If you are a webmaster then Google's PR patent does, for example. In the world without software patents, there's no way of knowing how it works, neither exploiting it. Although of course there's the advantage of using independently made similar inventions without fear.
- brlewis 18y ago
  Are you saying that in a world without software patents Page and Brin would never have turned in their thesis?
  - anamax 18y ago
    They didn't turn in their thesis.
    - anewaccountname 18y ago
      He didn't say they did.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

paul 18y ago

Patents are unreadable anyway, and in fact reading them is legally dangerous because then you may be knowingly infringing, which triggers triple damages, as I recall. The latest style is to use a mix of patents and trade secrets anyway, meaning that even if you wasted your time reading patents, you still wouldn't have the full picture.